[ Page 2861 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Purchase of ferry MS Stena Danica. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2861

Routine proceedings

Petitions

Mr. Clerk's report on petition presented by Mr. Fraser — 2862

Oral Questions

Inspection, purchase and modification of the Stena Danica. Mr. Bennett — 2862

Proposed dam on Chemainus River. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2863

Proposed dam on the Peace River. Mr. Phillips — 2864

Repainting of highway centre lines. Mr. Fraser — 2864

Number of housing units affected by construction strike. Mr. Gibson — 2865

Agriculture courses in new community colleges. Mr. Schroeder — 2865

Consultation with Westbank Indian band. Mr. Bennett — 2865

Use of Coach Lines' drivers to pick up buses. Mr. McClelland — 2865

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce estimates.

On vote 125.

Mr. Chabot — 2865

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2866

Mr. Rolston — 2866

Mr. Phillips — 2868

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2869

Mr. Phillips — 2869

Mr. McGeer — 2870

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2871

Mr. McGeer — 2872

Mr. Wallace — 2872

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2874

Mr. Wallace — 2875

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2875

Mr. Smith — 2875

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2877

Mr. Smith — 2877

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2877

Mr. Phillips — 2879

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2882

Mr. Phillips — 2884

Mrs. Jordan — 2885

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2889

Mrs. Jordan — 2890

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2891

Mr. McClelland — 2891

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2892

Mr. McGeer — 2892

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2893

Mr. McGeer — 2894

Mr. Gibson — 2894

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2895

Mr. Gardom — 2895

On vote 128.

Mr. Chabot — 2897

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2898

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today 41 elementary school students from New Denver, British Columbia, in company with their teacher, Mr. John D'Arc Angelo, and Dot and Bill Finlay and Sheila Crane from that community, who are accompanying the children. It's not too often that Interior students have an opportunity to journey to the House, so I'd ask the Members to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission of the House to make a statement regarding ferries.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that a large new ferry for the B.C. government fleet has been purchased from a Swedish firm. The new vessel, the MS Stena Danica, was required to help meet the crisis in Vancouver Island–mainland transportation while three recently ordered ships are being constructed in west coast yards. These new ships cannot be in service before 1976, and it is apparent from the growing traffic that an interim measure was necessary.

The new ferry should be in service during August. The Swedish ship has been purchased at a cost of $13,875,000, plus federal import duty and delivery costs from Göteborg to Vancouver, boosting the government outlay to $17.7 million. She will be modified to meet Canadian standards and the requirements of the existing 23-ship fleet.

The Stena Danica will carry up to 170 cars while reserving a lane for buses. She has a passenger capacity of 1,500 and boasts a gross registered tonnage of 4,437 tons. She has a speed of 21 knots with 9,600 horsepower twin-screw engines, stabilizers and bow thruster. She has a deep sea hull and would be suitable for any run on the coast, although her immediate task will be to serve the lower mainland–Vancouver Island routes.

It is estimated it would cost $20 million to build a similar ship in Canada today.

The Stena Danica will be renamed in keeping with B.C. Ferries' custom of each vessel honouring a centre of population in the province or some local connotation, but no decision has yet been made.

The ship was built in 1969 and has been employed in a route between Sweden and Denmark.

She is to sail from Göteborg on or about May 11 and is expected to arrive in Vancouver early in June. Until August she will undergo modifications and crewing will be arranged.

Traffic on B.C. ferries on the Island-mainland routes has increased in recent years at a rate of 9 per cent per annum. In the year ending March 1973, the B.C. ferry fleet carried 7.6 million passengers and 2.8 million vehicles. The growth has been predictable and constant but, unfortunately, no new ferries have been built since 1965, which is the basis of the present crisis.

I note that every vessel now in use which could be enlarged has now been stretched. In order to cope with the added traffic immediately, there was no alternative but to make this purchase. She is comparable in capacity to the largest ships now in service and is faster by about five knots.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter can rest until question period if any one has any further questions. I don't think it's a question of statements at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I understood it was the usual practice to have the opposition reply. If you'd like it….

MR. SPEAKER: I think that in situations that call for discussion — just brief statements on party position on some emergency, such as an earthquake or something — it's the usual practice. But in this sort of thing, a Ministerial statement, I think that if it leads to any questions, it could be raised in question period. That's why I asked them to be held first.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be quite clear that in this case all of question period will be taken up by questions on this one subject. I just ask your guidance as to whether this really is the purpose of question period — to be pre-empted, as it were, by such a far-reaching and important announcement on this particular subject. I would suggest that we've established the custom that as long as leaders make statements and not ask questions, this would preserve the better use of question period, in my view.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that the Speaker has to decide, as best he can sense the feeling of the House, whether a particular subject has been rather overdone? I have to really gauge it without knowing what the next question may be. It's very difficult for the Speaker

[ Page 2862 ]

to do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in asking permission of the House to make this statement was that I felt I should make this statement in the House rather than just release it outside. I felt I should make the statement in here first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Minister on a good statement which was factual and informative? I may say, however, that the whole subject of whether there will be opposition replies to Ministerial statements is the type of thing that perhaps should be examined by the committee, that you yourself are heading, of all party leaders.

Many of the rules of this House need consideration, not just specific ones as has been done by yesterday's motion. I trust that this type of thing — Ministerial statements, what they should contain, how long they should be, what sort of reply an opposition party should give and what rules should be on that reply — should be studied by your committee in a full range of re-examination of the procedures of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I just wanted to add that that matter is under consideration, of course, but there's only so much that can be done at one time in examining the rules and reform of the rules. But it certainly is on the agenda. The committee I appointed in the beginning has reported on that subject to some extent — on Ministerial statements as a right rather than by leave of the House. But at the moment I don't think that Ministerial statements should evoke speeches, certainly not of a taxing nature or of a questioning nature when we have question period following immediately afterwards.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table at this time the annual reports of the Water Resources Service and the Land Service, if I may.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): What year?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the most recent one.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

Reading and receiving petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe there's a statement by the Clerks on the petition.

DEPUTY CLERK: Report: office of the Clerks, May 4, 1974, in the matter of the petition presented to the House, May 6, 1974, by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser).

Standing order 73(4) provides that: "Every Member presenting a petition shall endorse his name thereon." and standing order 73(5) provides inter alia that: "…the signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the prayer of the petition."

The said petition contains neither the endorsement of the Member, nor the signatures of at least three petitioners thereon, and accordingly does not comply with standing orders.

All of which is respectfully submitted, I.M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't support it yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Oral questions.

INSPECTION,
PURCHASE AND MODIFICATION
OF THE STENA DANICA

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications in regard to the announcement he just made on the purchase of the vessel Stena Danica. I would like to know what firm carried out the inspection, what agents made the purchase on behalf of the government, and if any modifications or repairs are going to be required when the vessel is landed in British Columbia before it's put on regularly scheduled service.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We flew a member of the Canadian Steamship Inspection Service to Göteborg to inspect the vessel. Minor modification to the value of $.25 million will be required. This will include the sponsons to make it fit into the existing docking facilities.

What was the other question?

MR. BENNETT: I asked if there was an agent involved in the purchase.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it was direct purchase negotiation between ferry management and the owners of the ship itself, consummated in Victoria last Friday night at 5 o'clock.

[ Page 2863 ]

MR. BENNETT: I see.

MR. WALLACE: May I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications, were negotiations underway to purchase this ship during the budget debate in this House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, not during the budget debate. We have been looking for ships, I would say, for a couple of months, but to the best of my recollection we were still looking then. There were no negotiations on at that time. We were looking for ships, though.

MR. WALLACE: When was the first contact made with the Swedish authorities to inspect or otherwise negotiate on the ship? Could the Minister give us the debate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first report I have is April 16. The first report.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm interested in knowing how we looked for ships. Did we advertise? Were there any tenders put out? Where did we look? We're going to spend $17 or $18 million on this ship compared to $35 million which we have in our special fund for two ships. How did we go about buying this $17 million vessel?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I want to tell you it's not easy to find an adequate ferry that is for sale. We went looking for them. There's a market, you know — there are ships' agents and all the rest of it. The Swedes evidently have a system of shipbuilding, especially of ferries, where every ferry is a saleable commodity; they always have some other on line. It's rather an enterprising procedure they have.

We found when we first started out that it was a seller's market. There were only two possibilities, and because we would not make an overnight decision on the other one, it went out to tender, and these were the only two.

It's a very difficult thing to find ferries that are suitable. We looked in the United States; we looked elsewhere in Canada, and in Australia. We investigated all over the place, and it's a very difficult thing to find. If you advertise with tenders, you will get people writing to you with ships that you wouldn't want within 100 miles of the coast. I've had letters such as that.

MR. McCLELLAND: You can reject them, can't you?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No….

MR. McCLELLAND: You can reject those ships that you don't want. That's pretty easy to do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And we did that.

PROPOSED DAM ON
CHEMAINUS RIVER

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: on the weekend the Minister complained that the cabinet had okayed a dam on the Chemainus River without ever consulting him. May I ask the Minister what procedures…?

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You were unaware of the motion and of the dam, I understand, Mr. Minister, but I'll redirect my question to you. In the light of your total lack of knowledge on Saturday of a dam to be constructed on the Chemainus River, and your lack of knowledge of the resolution of the Victoria Fish and Game Association on this particular proposal, may I ask what steps you have taken, Mr. Minister, to make sure that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources keeps you informed on dams on streams which involve steelhead, Coho and salmon production?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I was aware of the proposed Chemainus dam some months ago, Mr. Member, and indicated that at the Wildlife Federation. A cabinet committee was formed and the chairman of that committee was the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). Their findings were that there was no alternate water supplies available to the district of North Cowichan, and I am consulting further with the chairman of that committee. It is not procedural that this committee hearing the appeal report back to cabinet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask as a supplementary question whether or not the Minister was misquoted when he said, "No comment right now. Contact me next week after I've had a chance to look into this. The government meets Monday, do you get the message?" which came out in the newspaper over the headline: "Radford Ignorant of Plan"?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, I said that there were communication problems and that I would look into it. I didn't say that I was unaware of the situation.

[ Page 2864 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Hon. Minister. In the light of the Hon. Minister's statements today that he was aware that this application was in, I would ask him why the Fish and Wildlife Branch was not represented at the hearing by counsel and found themselves in a position where they were presenting a very weak case as opposed to a strong case that was being presented by the Water Rights Branch.

My second question is: in light of the fact that you suggest that the committee found there was no alternate water supply, did the applicants present a detailed study of other alternates, both on the basis of supply and economics? I refer specifically to the use of the Cowichan River as a means of water supply, or the use of ground water.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Madam Member, I said that I was aware of the proposal of the dam. As to your other question about what went on at the hearings, I would suggest that you direct your question to the chairman of that committee. Our Fish and Wildlife Branch did have some opposition to the dam proposal, but as to all of the discussion at that hearing, you'll have to direct your question to the chairman of that committee.

MRS. JORDAN: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will redirect my questions at the proper time, but I would ask the Minister if he's not aware that the general consensus of opinion is that a proposal culminates in marriage, and that in fact this proposal was not idly put forth and that it was liable to be acted on, and why you didn't take action.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the original Minister who I wish to question what steps he is taking to make sure he or the Minister of Health, who apparently chaired this committee, what steps he is taking to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Branch and the B.C. Wildlife Federation are advised of such hearings so that the statement "They were not even advised of the hearing" does not continue to appear in the newspaper when apparently there was communication between the various branches?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Branch were at the cabinet committee hearing, so there was in fact representation from that part of the Hon. Minister's department. There's certainly discussion being carried on between myself and my colleagues regarding the communication question.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: on the basis of a press report quoting the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) speaking in Prince Rupert, has the Minister responsible for British Columbia ferries received the recommendation or suggestion based on a policy of "Canadians first" using British Columbia ferry vessels in the near future?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have heard it suggested in a number of places, but it's not my intention to pursue that particular procedure. I think it would be very difficult.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The report indicates that the "Canadians first" policy on B.C. ferry vessels is being considered by the government. This quotes the Minister of Highways. Does the Minister of Transportation and Communication reject the fact that it is likely to become policy? Is that to be understood?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can ask questions about future policies of the government in this matter.

PROPOSED DAM ON
THE PEACE RIVER

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct just a little question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and director of British Columbia Hydro. In view of the fact, Mr. Minister, that you are going to build yet another dam on the mighty Peace River and take more power out of that great place, have you got together with your other director, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), to reach a decision as to whether or not you will assist those great people in Lone Prairie to get their hydro line? (Laughter.)

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We haven't come to a decision yet, but we are still dealing with it. We want to see the people of Lone Prairie with lights.

REPAINTING OF
HIGHWAY CENTRE LINES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question for the Minister of Highways. We have a high traffic hazard situation in this province right now on all the arterial highways. The centre lines are worn out and there is no sign of them being replaced. This is a dangerous situation. My question is: when are you going to get somebody in your department to buy some paint and put these lines back?

[ Page 2865 ]

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): We're looking into that, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS AFFECTED
BY CONSTRUCTION STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): One of the serious potential effects of the construction strike is the impact on badly needed housing in British Columbia, particularly multiple-family housing. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Housing how many such units are being affected and he took it as notice. I hope he has the information today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think your proper course is to wait until the Minister comes back to the House or to nudge him occasionally, but not the next day.

AGRICULTURE COURSES
IN NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGES

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): For the Minister of Education. On what basis will the curriculum be established for the new valley college, and how can we ensure that a faculty of agriculture will be included?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): It will be up to the new college council to make recommendations on the matter of curriculum. I am sure that if you are particularly interested in the matter of the agricultural college you should have an opportunity to so express it to the council as the Member representing part of the area.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm delighted with the fact that the Minister appears receptive to an agricultural college in the lower Fraser Valley, and one is considered for the North Okanagan. Who is going to make the final decision as to where it will be?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I at no time said I was receptive to any specific area. I know there is a need for some form of agricultural training. I think you are aware that the Agriculture department and the Education department have been working on a report on this, which I would be very pleased to send to the Members interested.

CONSULTATION WITH
WESTBANK INDIAN BAND

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Human Resources. Chief Noll Derrikson of the Indian band council at Westbank, in discussion, was of the opinion that no Indian cut-off lands would be either leased or disposed of without full consultation with the Indian people. Currently there is construction on the cut-off lands at Westbank.

Could the Minister advise whether or not such consultation took place with the Westbank Indian band, and, further, was the ground rent for the site location for a senior citizens' project agreed to by the band council?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): In respect to this particular piece of cut-off land, that land was made available through an order-in-council on September 11, 1972. The previous government did that. I have referred the matter to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who, as you know, was out of town last week. We will be discussing it. I have been in touch with the band about that.

MR. BENNETT: It may have been granted in 1972, but were discussions initiated with the Indian band? I understand the rent has been set and 50 per cent of the rental may accrue to them. If they weren't consulted, why not?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, I'll take that part of the question as notice and discuss it with my colleague.

USE OF COACH LINES' DRIVERS
TO PICK UP BUSES

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could the Minister tell us whether or not Vancouver Island Coach Lines' drivers are being used to go back to Saskatchewan and Manitoba to pick up used buses or new buses? If so, on what basis of contract? Hourly, or how are they being paid?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I will have to take that as notice, 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.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We seem to get this Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) in bits and pieces, and I find it difficult to maintain my train of thought. We ask questions, and the questions are

[ Page 2866 ]

never answered. The vote is pulled back, and sometimes we might appear repetitious if we ask the question again. However, I am not one to repeat questions very frequently in the Legislature.

But I do want to pursue one matter that the Minister talked about — steel and this junket to Japan. In questioning him the other day or the other week, whenever his estimates were up for the second go around, he suggested to me that the consumption of steel in British Columbia is in the 300,000 to 400,000 tons-per-year capacity. Also, he indicated that 75 per cent of the steel consumed in British Columbia comes from Japan.

I did a little quick arithmetic at the time, but they pulled the vote back so I didn't have the opportunity to give you the benefit of my mathematics. But supposing the consumption of steel in British Columbia is the higher figure of 400,000 tons per year; well, 75 per cent of 400,000 tons is 300,000. Now, the Minister tells us that he is going to be receiving a 22 per cent increase in the amount of steel we presently receive from Japan. Then he also says, beyond the 22 per cent, that we are going to receive 125,000 tons per year. Well, 22 per cent of 300,000 is 66,000 tons, not 125,000 tons.

So I wonder where you have made your mistake in your mathematics, Mr. Minister, on the question of steel.

Also, we've seen an indication that Western Canada Steel proposes a substantial expansion of their present production of steel in British Columbia. They are going to expand to 200,000 tons per year, which would be approximately 50 per cent of the requirements for steel in British Columbia as indicated by the Minister last week when he was discussing his estimates.

In view of the government's anxiety to establish a steel mill, could the Minister tell the House why the expansion plans of Western Canada Steel have been totally ignored by the government? Is it only a question of the government wanting to be in the business of manufacturing steel, or are they going to lend encouragement to a private industry which is prepared to expand a steel plant in the province?

I wonder if the Minister at any time has had any consultation with Western Canada Steel regarding their proposed expansion? Have they consulted you?

AN HON. MEMBER: We dealt with that.

MR. CHABOT: Did we? All it involved the other night, Mr. Minister, was the close-off of your estimates. I thought it was extremely amusing but not very informative. If you suggest that we have gone through this business of Western Canada Steel, I won't pursue it any further.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): It's in Hansard.

MR. CHABOT: But what day? Are the Blues available?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River has the floor. I would ask other Members not to speak from their seats.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have other questions, but I would just like the Minister to clarify at this time just what 22 per cent really represents as far as the import of steel from Japan is concerned. If we do get 75 per cent of our imports, what are we importing from Japan? It would appear we are importing substantially more than the Minister suggests is being consumed in this province. I would just like that one point clarified.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, just briefly. We did cover the Western Canada Steel situation. I indicated my officials and Michael Hobbs of Western Canada Steel and his officials had conversations earlier in the year about their expansion plans. We encouraged them; we look forward to them; we asked them about their expansion plans last fall when there was a real possibility that the construction industry would have been shut down because of the lack of reinforcement bar and other shapes for construction.

With respect to your figures, Mr. Member, I'm sorry if I said 300,000 or 400,000 tons. It is somewhat more. I'm sorry if I said that because that's misleading.

There's no definite figures on usage overall, because some of it's coming up from the States as well. But we estimate that between 500,000 and 60,000, maybe even as high as 700,000, tons per annum are required by British Columbia steel users — 22 per cent of that makes it a considerably higher figure. The steel ship from Japan does constitute approximately 65 or 75 per cent, depending on how definite our total figure is.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I have a great deal of confidence in you as the Minister and I know that things are going to go ahead, but I've got to admit a bit of a frustration as an MLA.

I made a lot of speeches in this House about the fact that many ridings, and not just Dewdney, are more and more bedrooms to large urban areas. Of course, this means a lot of transportation. This means more and more capital laid out in highway and bridges. This also means the fracturing of the

[ Page 2867 ]

community. This means that the father is away for very, very long hours. This is stressful.

Nearly a decade ago a lawyer, Bill Lane, now chairman of the Lands Commission, said that in Richmond alone the subsidy, tax-wise, was nearly $250. It was up to at least $250 as a deficit problem, tax-wise, to the municipality. In other words, this had to be met by institutional and by industrial taxation. In Maple Ridge the tax base, industry-wise, is barely 14 per cent. It's not even that in Mission.

What I'm trying to say to you is that I think that there could be a less frustrating experience for MLAs, such as myself, who have really tried. We have spent hours and hours and hours, met with the Land Commission, met with the people in your department, met with the respective industrial development committees such as, in my case, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows as well as the Mission committee, chambers of commerce, the SPEC groups, the IWA and any power structure we can think of to try to establish planned industrial parks in these bedroom ridings. It is a frustration. We have had options' on land in Pitt Meadows and in Maple Ridge — this is actually on the border of both communities.

I can tell you precisely what we thought the cost would be. We had very attractive options on 111 acres. The options have run out. We renewed the options. We've had to let them go again. This, of course, was costing money to the municipality of Maple Ridge. We came through with very precise accounting on what it would cost to service this area, which is agriculturally marginal land — it's now under the agricultural land reserve. To service these 111 acres we thought we had some pretty precise figures which were less than $28,000 an acre, which is for the purchasing, for flood-proofing — which we are told would cost us $2,000 per foot per acre — plus water, plus sewer, plus highway and kind of basic electrification. It has really been a frustrating experience.

As I say, we have had to let those options go. There is some hope. The municipality, the planning people, senior staff and the alderman and mayor in Maple Ridge are still hoping something could be assembled.

I want to assure you that, of course, we've looked at other alternative pieces of property. They're even more expensive. If you go to the highland property you're talking probably $30,000 to $35,000 to basic industrial land — land which is not, proximity-wise, nearly as good as the land that we're talking about. We're talking about land that's on the Fraser River, that's next to the CPR, it's next to the Lougheed Highway and it's within grasp of basic servicing.

I am just explaining my frustration that it's now or it's never. Land, as you know, is going really out of sight — industrial and other land. It's not that we have alternatives to look at a decade from now in Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and in Mission. It's got to be now and so I just hope for some support from you on this.

Admittedly the costs, of course, are going above $28,000 an acre now. As I talk, I'm sure they're going up. The property in Mission is probably at least as attractive on each side of the north side of the river beside Mission Bridge — land which is already zoned industrial and has been for eight years now, according to the lower mainland regional plan, and land which is jointly owned by Highways, the District of Mission and by a private chap. So I'm hoping that some of your officers can get out there, give us some encouragement, and at least comment, feasibility-wise, where maybe the municipalities which now, according to legislation passed last year, at least can go into business for themselves. If you can't in partnership with them, at least they can be masters of their own house as far as creating an industrial climate.

I don't want to be cynical, but quite frankly I think this is an awful more important than sending people down to the South Pacific trading rim to sell kitchen cabinets, which are already well subscribed, which in doing a bit of research I gather have a pretty good market right now. I read your press releases, and again I'm happy with what you're doing, but surely land couldn't be more elementary in establishing an industrial base.

I believe that our caucus is committed to moving some of the industry out of False Creek and out of some of the more cluttered industrial areas of Vancouver now, that we are committed to having neat packages throughout the lower mainland, and certainly throughout this province. Tilbury is going to go ahead. Tilbury is fine for people who live in Delta, who live in North Surrey, some who live in Richmond, but it's certainly no good to people who would have to commute great distances at great expense and, I would say, at great waste to work at places like Tilbury Island. So it's my hope that at least you can encourage us, give us direction and comment, feasibility-wise, on whether municipalities should go off on their own.

I remind you, of course, that municipalities are very tight financially. They really don't have the borrowing capacity that you have. I would like to see that you go beyond that $15 million that you've been given cabinet authority for as far as expenditure for industrial development. I think we should underwrite at least to the $25 million that the House authorized a year ago because, as I say, it might take $100 million. We need a great deal of money to get going.

I also want to ask the Minister: what are your

[ Page 2868 ]

expectations for the turn-over of money? Again, I wonder if there is confusion by the Members. Are you expecting to turn money over every three or four years? The private sector I don't think has that expectation, and I can't see where you should have that expectation. You just aren't going to turn over investments of, let's say, $30,000 per acre times 100 acres. You're not going to turn that money over every two or three years. It might take a decade and I just expected that. If you can look at the municipality of Richmond as a prototype, I gather that it was a decade ago that they went to their proposal. They have now got their money out of it, but that took a decade. Right now, of course, Mr. Chairman, Richmond as a municipality has already made about $4 million profit. They still have well over 1,000 acres still to go and that's kind of an exciting thing for other municipalities to look to.

Could you comment on the whole problem of creating industrial workers, of developing both sexes? I gather we are desperately short for trained industrial workers. We hear this figure of 20,000 jobs per day in the metro Vancouver area not being filled. I was pretty saddened to see people in the logging industry, for instance in my riding, just beside themselves in trying to find trained people especially in the machining and mill righting and welding sector.

The Province was accurate in the comments in the business section about a month ago lamenting this fact, putting a lot of the blame on the industries that really haven't done the recruiting. Of course, if they do recruiting one company might be very conscientious in recruiting developing skills, industrial skills, and yet the other firms which don't have the money, don't lay out the money, benefit by the mobility of these people from one company to another.

I just wonder if you could comment on that. Do you think you have some kind of assessment? How close is the relationship of these primary industries to the vocational schools where we're trying to develop the skills? How immediate is the relationship between the academic, learning situation in a trade school, or in a regional college, to the on-site industrial situation? If we don't have those trained people — it's like building ships. You don't build ships without shipwrights and welders and machinists.

I am going to sit down, but again I've got to confess the frustration in my own experience in setting up industrial parks.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Just a few short comments. I would like to get back to this trip to Japan which we've discussed on several occasions. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that I predicted that the Premier would be out of the province when finally the Minister's estimates went through, because the Premier seems to be embarrassed with his Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. So now that the Premier is away and won't be embarrassed we can get on with getting the Minister's estimates passed.

Now I would like to ask the Minister of Industrial Development whether he had prepared before he went to Japan a complete list of steel requirements from the various users of steel from Japan. I have reason to believe that he was not prepared at all when he went to Japan, that he didn't really know how much steel was required by various users in British Columbia.

Not only did he not know what various users were having a shortage, he didn't know what types of steel there were shortages of. He was ill-prepared. This deal that he made acquiring steel from Japan was just a last-minute effort as he was leaving Japan because he had accomplished absolutely nothing else, and he couldn't come back empty-handed.

If I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to stand in his place and tell me I'm wrong. I would also like him to tell me what else he did in Japan besides getting the steel situation straightened out.

As I said in this House before, Mr. Chairman, this steel situation could have been settled with a phone call. We supply them with their coking coal, and they need it, and we need some of their steel. A phone call would have done this. I don't think any trip to Japan was necessary, because the Minister didn't even have the details with him.

The press release issued by the Premier's office, who…. Maybe he's the real Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, well, maybe it's prepared by Twiggy, but it emanates from the Premier's Office, not from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. It says:

"In addition, the industry will undertake to alleviate the specific shortages validated by the B.C. government. Lauk said his department will begin immediately to produce a breakdown of specific steel shortages."

This is dated May 3 on the return from the trip. He's going to file a report; he's going to break down the specific steel shortages.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, he didn't even know what the steel shortages were in the various industries before he went to Japan to negotiate. Now what kind of a businessman is that, I ask you,

[ Page 2869 ]

Mr. Chairman? He wouldn't go to court without preparing his case, but he went to Japan without knowing the specific shortages, because as of May 3 his department…and I will read it again into the record:

"Lauk said his department will begin immediately to produce a breakdown of specific steel shortages."

He's going to begin now, after returning from Japan and having it blasted all over the papers about what a fantastic deal he had made to get steel from Japan — and the Minister didn't even know what the shortages were. He is just now going to compile a list. This, Mr. Chairman, is the man who is going to be the nerve centre — the nervous centre, I think it is — of industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I find it very difficult to put my faith in this Minister and his policies. I don't want the people of this great province of ours, who paid for that great trip to Japan, to be misled. I ask the Minister to explain to me how he can make deals with specific companies in Japan to supply our steel shortages when he didn't even know what they were.

Now I would like the Minister to explain.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has a great facility of asking the same question several times. I am just wondering whether he doesn't completely understand the question or whether he wants the other people to understand it clearly.

It is not possible, Mr. Member, to go with specific shortages to Japan and discuss specific shortages. The word specific is in that press release you referred to. We did have a breakdown of those steel users polled as to what the shortages were from time to time, because every day or every week or every month they change. That is the short answer to that question which took you about 20 minutes to ask.

With respect to the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), I appreciate the particular problems of individual Members travelling from suburban areas to areas where industrial work is available, and that this does work a hardship. And the length of time does become longer and longer the farther out you live, and so on, of course. The question of where to locate industrial parks is a kind of priority the board of directors of the development corporation is presently coping with.

Now not every community, of course, can be assisted through the agency of the development corporation, because if that were to occur, the regional areas that many Members in this House have an interest in would want some of the pie and want some of the investment from the development corporation.

Now with respect to your area, Mr. Member, I have asked for a report from the development corporation; I understand that an officer was out there. There was also some communication with the Land Commission with respect to their views about the land use in that area. Those discussions are occurring. I will have a report for you and I will provide you with that report.

I don't agree with the Hon. Member, Mr. Chairman, when he says, on kitchen cabinets, that these industrial land-banking schemes are more important than trade missions involving various products produced in British Columbia. We have probably the finest cabinets in all of the world here in British Columbia. We should develop a furniture-manufacturing base. We should develop a number of these areas, and I think the way to develop them is to send the actual manufacturers on trade missions, assisted by the government, and expanding their markets and their knowledge and their exchange of information.

Otherwise, you stultify, petrify, the industry. They become parochial and they eventually dry up. I think that that shouldn't be allowed to happen. That is why we have trade missions. I feel that they are very important.

The skilled worker situation: I understand that the Ministers of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and Labour (Hon. Mr. King) are consulting on that. Perhaps later on you can ask the Minister of Labour a question on that. With respect to my department, we have skilled development programmes in the making as part of our current development studies, but primarily we regard it as the responsibility of the other two Ministries that I have just mentioned.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly it's a supplementary, because the Minister said that it took me a long time to ask a question — which he still didn't answer. I realize that there are specific requirements by steel users from time to time. But from the date of this press release, when you say you are going to prepare a list of specific shortages, to the time you left to go to Japan wasn't over a space of 19 days. And anyone who is planning to build a building, or is using steel, certainly plans more than 19 days ahead. So don't give me that gobbledegook!

The facts are that he didn't do his homework before he went to Japan. He didn't know what the requirements of this province were before he went to Japan. And when those steel industry people, who were good citizens then, Mr. Chairman, asked him what the specific requirements were, he couldn't answer — after spending $30,000 or $40,000 of the taxpayers' money.

He wasn't prepared. That's the whole answer, Mr. Chairman. That is what I want brought out here this afternoon.

[ Page 2870 ]

What are these businessmen in Japan, these steel producers, going to think of a Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce who goes so ill-prepared? I will tell you. It is as I put it in the first instance, Mr. Chairman. This was just sort of a last-ditch effort to come home so that he wouldn't have his hands completely empty. That's all he did accomplish in Japan and, as I have said before, it could have been accomplished with a phone call.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions about his trip to Japan, too.

It concerns any commitments that the Minister may have made to NKK, because reports coming out of Japan have it that the Minister has chosen that firm to build steel plants in British Columbia. I would like to know whether the Minister has made any commitments, formal or informal, to the NKK Company with regard to building a steel plant.

Specifically, has any contract been entered into? If no contract has been entered into, has the Minister discussed with that firm the feasibility of their building a steel plant in British Columbia?

If they aren't even at the stage of feasibility, has the Minister led them to believe that if a steel plant were to be built in British Columbia by the Japanese, they would be the ones the provincial government would enter into discussions with?

If the answer to all of these question is no, then I would like to ask the Minister if he can account for how press reports came out of Japan suggesting that the NKK firm had been chosen….

HON. MR. LAUK: What ones are you talking about, Pat?

MR. McGEER: Well, there have been a number of press reports, as the Minister knows. He is followed around by people….

HON. MR. LAUK: Be fair….

MR. McGEER: Well, there was one just last night in The Vancouver Sun…

HON. MR. LAUK: Have you got it with you?

MR. McGEER: …by M.N. Tsuji, the Tokyo correspondent for the afternoon press. Mr. Tsuji reports to British Columbians regarding the activities of some of the firms which, we gather, were the sponsors and hosts of the British Columbia government in their travels abroad.

We do know there was a complaint from the Canadian embassy to the Barrett government regarding their trip to Japan. On the surface one might suspect that this was just the usual hassling and name calling that's so common between B.C. and the federal government. But it appears as though underneath it all was a more serious warning to the Barrett government. For example, an official of the Mitsubishi Corp. accompanied the Barrett government from the time they left the parliament buildings here in Victoria, or at least at some point before they arrived at the airport, on their airplane trip to Japan.

Other companies that were involved in entertaining the British Columbia government officials, buying them dinners, arranging their schedules and hosting them were the giant firms that are called the new Zaibatsu or financial cliques — organizations such as Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Marubeni, C. Itoh and Sumitomo. These firms are not in very high regard in Japan. They've been taken before the Japanese parliament, accused of price fixing, tax evasion, making excess profits, engaging in illegal lumber transactions, controlling of markets, and a number of other anti-social and anti-democratic activities that would be the embarrassment of any government that dealt with them. Yet these were the people who, over the Canadian government embassy, arranged to be the hosts and entertainers for the British Columbia government on their supposedly official visit to Japan.

The cabinet Ministers of British Columbia have a hard enough time dealing with executives here in British Columbia when their international dealings are completely above board. We'll naturally be discussing with the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams), when his estimates come up, some of the problems he has run into when he begins wheeling and dealing on an international scale. It's clear that the people of British Columbia, and specifically the workers at Ocean Falls, are being skinned by a New York broker. That's one example where we now have hard evidence of the naivety of cabinet Ministers in the international business world and hard evidence of a double standard: one standard when you're dealing with business within British Columbia and another when you're dealing with international business.

The Minister's specific responsibility is that of industrial development, trade and commerce. Approximately half of our factory production in British Columbia is sold on international markets. Japan is our third largest trading partner.

I don't think it was proper for the British Columbia government to have been under control or at least be hosted by these giant trading firms that are under such a shadow within Japan itself. I think the Premier and the Minister of Industrial Development should have shown better judgment than to have been accompanied by an official of the Mitsubishi Corporation. I don't think they should

[ Page 2871 ]

have been entertained and wooed and had money spent on them by any of these giant Japanese corporations. I think any dealings that should have gone on between Japanese firms and the Government of British Columbia should have been done on the most careful protocol basis through the Canadian embassy. That's a matter of judgment and good sense.

We don't know what kinds of deals were entered into. We do know that in another portfolio, namely Lands and Forests, the government is in trouble as a result of what they've done. All we have here is a suggestion in a news report that one Japanese company, NKK, has been chosen to build a steel plant in B.C., and vague and rather inexact statements from the Minister as to what arrangements he has made to purchase steel from the Japanese to make up for shortages that our manufacturers here are now experiencing.

We need to know through whom those purchases are being made and what the delivery price is going to be. I think we need to know precisely what the arrangements are now and will be in the future between the Government of British Columbia and the giant trading firms of Japan. I wonder if the Minister could give us some explanations.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I cannot describe in any other way that mindless, libellous attack on Japanese corporations as nothing more than the most shameful performance by that Member I've seen since I've been sitting in this House.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shameful.

HON. MR. LAUK: The business people of this province and of this country and the very embassy of which he speaks are trying very hard to bridge a gap that has existed between this country and the Japanese since World War II, and he's conjuring it up again. It's the most shameful demonstration I've seen from a Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and his vicious attack?

HON' MR. LAUK: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said there was a junket and that we didn't do anything in Japan. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said there was a sinister plot and an intrigue, and we signed all kinds of secret pacts. What a pile of nonsense! Why don't you get together and do something together for a change? I'm beginning to think the unified party is a good idea; maybe we'll get some sensible opposition.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: With respect to the forms of entertainment and the invitations and the activity of myself and the Premier and our party, it was taken on the advice of the embassy officials, whose advice I accept, not the First Member for Vancouver Point Grey. We had a disagreement with respect to how it would be handled in a technical way only. I think you should check out your facts, Mr. Member, before standing up and mouthing off and getting everything wrong. Of course, it's too much to ask for you to change now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Is the press story wrong?

HON. MR. LAUK: The press story is wrong. I know that this government has not chosen NKK to build a steel mill in this province. We have discussed feasibility of steel production in this province with NKK and other steel producers in Japan.

In addition, there's a special consultant to my department travelling on many matters in Europe, and I have asked him to call upon the Austrian, German and British steel producers. I've asked him to make contact and to discuss — initially in some cases and to follow up in other cases — the feasibility of steel production within this province. His name is Clifford Sawyer, special consultant to my department over the past several months.

Now with respect to the attack by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — a reprehensible attack — if we were to refuse invitations from various trading corporations, that, in our society as well as in others, is considered bad manners. I will remind you of cabinet Ministers and MLAs in the opposition alike who I have seen attend dinners thrown by private enterprise corporations in the Empress Hotel without any loss to their dignity or purity; and I don't think that we would have either.

They were polite, they were gracious and, during the social occasions, I can assure you that no member of those corporations discussed business with me, because it wasn't done.

Now the Member chose to attack Ocean Falls, because I suppose he has to catch Air West at 4 o'clock and he hasn't got time to wait for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources' (Hon. Mr. Williams') estimates. Off he goes flying his aircraft across the water again — skipping and jumping over the islands back to Vancouver–Point Grey….

MR. McGEER: I'll be here.

Interjections.

[ Page 2872 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll be sitting down in a moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that Members on both sides, particularly the Minister, keep their remarks relevant to the vote before us.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to see your renewed interest in order in the estimates this afternoon.

With respect to the question asked by the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey…. He did ask a specific question: "How will the purchases of the extra supplies of steel be made?" I say through the normal and existing commercial channels that already supply steel to steel users here from Japan. We have not in any way made a choice or preference to Mitsubishi or C. Itoh or any trading corporation. That was understood when we landed in Japan. It was understood when we left and it's understood on this day.

MR. McGEER: I don't want to hold the House up. But I would like to read for the Minister a brief quotation regarding these firms which he stoutly defended. I'm quoting from Mr. Tsuji who lives in Japan and therefore is familiar with what's going on day to day.

"Last February the presidents of seven of the nation's largest trading companies" — and they are the ones I named — "were subpoenaed to appear as witnesses at a Diet committee." That's the equivalent of our federal House of Parliament. "They were grilled on the subject of excess oil profits, illegal lumber transactions, speculative land dealings, tax evasion and controlling of markets involving important commodities such as rice, wool, silk, soy beans, paper, detergents, foodstuffs and a wide range of imported goods. Most have admitted their guilt…promised to give back excess profits…vowed to quit anti-social behaviour and try patching up their public image."

So I'm not accusing them of anything that hasn't been brought out in public testimony before the Japanese government, and admitted to by the firms concerned.

I certainly wouldn't have raised the subject, Mr. Chairman, had it not been the occasion of a warning from the Canadian Embassy in Japan, who is familiar with what's going on and would have been the correct one to arrange protocol visits for the provincial government and certainly would have helped the Minister and the Premier to avoid the kind of embarrassment which I suggest they have encountered as a result of their naivety and their willingness to accept one set of standards outside of the province which suits their convenience — standards which they would not dare accept from within the province.

I hope the Minister is correct that he has made no commitments to a Japanese steel firm to build such a firm in British Columbia. I said in the debate the other night that I was against this sort of thing. I think it would be a mistake because of the different way that the Japanese go about industrial development as compared with ourselves.

Having said that, I want to also say that I have the greatest admiration for the Japanese people. They are superb technicians, the world's hardest working people and second to none in intelligence and technological innovation. We can learn a great deal from them.

Beware, is all I say, Mr. Chairman. Beware! The government has already got itself into enough trouble in international trading. I hope that they're not going to repeat the style of visit that they had very recently in Japan.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to change the topic just a little bit, and I'll try to be brief. When I spoke earlier in this debate, I touched on the whole question of proper port facilities for British Columbia. The Minister was rather general in his comments.

I tried to point out the very obvious disadvantages of the present port of Vancouver at a time when the demands on the facilities of the port are ever-increasing and when it is clearly on record that we are losing to Seattle, which apparently can more readily deal with containerization. I don't want to get specifically on to that.

I want to talk about the chaotic situation which apparently exists regarding the port of Vancouver. Now I think that the facts and figures are obvious in many places to determine that the port of Vancouver is reaching a point where it really cannot continue to meet the increasing demand, and that what we really need is some new, large, integrated port facility actually to replace in the course of the next several years the port of Vancouver.

But more important is the unbelievable chaos which apparently exists in the administration of the port of Vancouver. How can we ever hope as a province to deal with the increasing demand for the shipment of ore and grain and just about every other product from the Interior and from the western provinces when we can't even run the port we have at the size it is and with the facilities it has?

I notice that Mr. Paddy Neale, the Vancouver East MP, had raised the matter at the federal level and had asked the federal government to produce copies of contracts between the National Harbours

[ Page 2873 ]

Board and three stevedoring firms to reveal the extent of what he called "the rip-off being made by the companies at the expense of Vancouver."

According to Mr. Neale there had been — and I quote his phrase — "a shady deal between Rathie and the companies resulting in Vancouver losing $494,620 in tax revenue in 1974." He further charged that "Rathie arbitrarily, and without consultation with the City of Vancouver, cancelled contracts in force up to October 31 last year between the National Harbours Board and the three firms."

It's no real help, I don't think, to learn that Mr. Rathie is going to appear before the transport committee of the federal House. With a federal election in the offing I don't suppose that event will ever take place anyway.

At any rate, that is the kind of comment that was made and, of course, has been echoed by the mayor of Vancouver and by several aldermen. Just last week we have the Minister himself in a speech to the I think it was the chamber of commerce, was it? Board of Trade at the Hotel Vancouver, launching a bitter attack on, it seems to me, just about everybody who is connected with the National Harbours Board.

The newspaper article is headed "Lauk Blasts Port Operations." He says:

"While the federal government is sponsoring a major waterfront study, the local member, Mr. Rathie, is playing a guerrilla-type action that apparently is without regard for community, provincial or western Canadian interests."

I fault the Ministry of Transport and Ottawa which is apparently not in control of its own service.

Later on the Minister said that he cited Roberts Bank as a sensitive spot where conflicting interests meet head on, and where the relationship between the National Harbours Board and the B.C. Harbours Board is obscure.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister gave a very general and diffuse answer to some of the questions I asked about the future for harbour development, and I am certainly not trying at this point in time to blame the Minister for some of the chaos which he, himself, has been honest and blunt enough to describe. What we want to know in this House is the next positive, productive step which is proposed by this government and by this Minister to get this unholy mess straightened around for the very simple reason that the economy of British Columbia is heavily dependent upon the efficacy with which it can transport and export products brought to the lower mainland.

I can well appreciate now that with a federal election in the offing life might be difficult in the field of negotiations. I'm not denying that. But on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, to be politically realistic it may well be that this is as good a time as any to try and deal with the federal government if, indeed, it is the Minister's conviction that, as he stated here, the Ministry of Transport in Ottawa is not in control of its own servants. I would like to know what action, if any, the Minister has taken officially or unofficially to support the request by more than one of the federal Ministers that Mr. Rathie resign.

It would appear from reading this sad situation, as it has been publicized from about early March, that Mr. Rathie is certainly very much a stumbling block towards any kind of progressive and successful operation of the harbour of Vancouver. We have had the rather unusual experience, I think, of seeing at least two federal Ministers ask for his resignation, not to mention the civic elected officials in Vancouver. I think that when things reach this point we are entitled in this House to know what the Minister feels about this, what action, if any, he has taken, or more importantly, what action he is planning to take in the future.

The other point I wish to raise at this time is that I also spoke in the debate earlier on when again, I must regretfully say, the Minister gave a rather bland, generalized answer when I talked about one specific instance where this province had passed up the opportunity to contract for the construction of four fairly large oil tankers. I won't go through the details again, but here today, right here in this House, we have the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) explaining why and under what circumstances we've spent $17 million buying secondhand merchandise from Sweden — $17 million worth, 50 per cent more than the two ferries that are going to be built here in British Columbia.

Now, I know, Mr. Chairman, you just can't develop the facilities to do this overnight. But the answer the Minister gave me a week or so ago when we were in this debate, in my view and in retrospect, was really quite inadequate in view of the fact that at that very time this government is taking no initiatives to develop the shipbuilding industry.

You know, it really interests me that in this House, not too long ago, perhaps a year ago, one of the Members on this side of the House asked the Premier and Minister of Finance about unemployment. Oh, there was a big arm waving demonstration by the Premier that well, of course, this province had had no initiative in the shipbuilding industry even when federal subsidies were readily available, and that the Social Credit administration had been very neglectful in this respect. But indeed this government would show the way in industrial development as far as shipbuilding was concerned. In fact, as I recall, the Premier even

[ Page 2874 ]

promised that he would encourage the federal government to get into the creation of a Canadian merchant marine operation.

Now, all I say, Mr. Chairman, without holding up the business of the House, is that today, far more so than the instance I quoted of the Indonesian company seeking tankers to be constructed in British Columbia, here we have our own ferry needs being met by the purchase of, I think, a very expensive secondhand ship from Sweden that was built five years ago, and presumably is either past its best or for some reason the Swedes are ready to sell the ship.

I just ask the Minister: are there any more specific plans, other than what he mentioned in response to my earlier questions, about British Columbia getting into shipbuilding in a big way?

When we think of the potential there is both in terms of our access to water and the obvious world demand for shipping, ferries, tankers, you name it…. As the Minister of Transport and Communications said earlier this afternoon, when they started looking round for a ship there were only two alternatives, as far as they could determine, which surely suggests that here is a market. In fact the Minister himself said that it is a seller's market. Surely, it should be patently obvious to everyone in British Columbia interested in its industrial development that we should get into shipbuilding in a big way to provide ferries, which obviously we are going to continue to need, and to provide ships that many other countries in the world are presently having constructed in Japanese yards and British yards and European yards, and all over the world.

In the instance I quoted a week or so ago, this particular marine consultant, who was instructed to arrange for the contract for the construction of the ships, said that he couldn't find a yard anywhere in Canada that would take any contract within four years.

I know we have problems in some of our trade in this province with producing goods, either natural goods such as vegetables and apples which we can produce in abundance and can't find an adequate market for, or we can't get the price to meet the cost of production. Here is an area of industrial trade and development which is just gasping for an increase in sellers, for more people, for more countries with the potential and the expertise to build ships.

I hope that on these two vital aspects of our economy which the Minister has touched on — and with respect, I think rather generally and inadequately — harbour development and shipbuilding, the Minister will give us some specific answers to these questions.

HON. MR. LAUK: I would like to be brief because you have the article before you, Mr. Member, and it was well publicized what my remarks were to the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, why don't you read the paper? You seem to pick up scraps of paper from Japan — read some of the local news as well instead of sitting there making snide remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: All you do is make snide remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Hon. Minister address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the port facilities, I think they are in a chaotic situation. They have just announced another study from the federal government. I think the attack on Mr. Rathie and the study are all scapegoats; I think they are sidestepping the issue. The issue is threefold: the administration of our port facilities in this province; the planning of port facilities and expansion; and the communications problem between those who use the port facilities, will require the use of them, and those who are building, planning and administering them. It has been an ugly situation for several years. It is not getting any better. I see no signs of improvement.

Now, you asked for a concrete step. I'm drafting a letter now to the federal government, and I'll be releasing it in due course. There is some information I want to put in the letter, or decide whether or not to put in the letter, with respect to my department's plan to assist in port development — to the federal government Ministry of Transport.

But, you know, when a couple of cabinet Ministers are calling for the resignation of someone who is a member of a board which is the creature of the federal government, one begins to wonder who is governing this country, Mr. Chairman. I think the bureaucracy is completely out of the hands of the Liberal government, and this has got to be recognized. I don't mind musing about it at home with a sherry, and sitting in a Victorian wing chair, but we've got to realize that it is now affecting the very livelihood that we depend on through our port facilities. I'm gravely concerned.

I hope to be taking definite action on our own, but we haven't got control of the planning and administration of those ports. I think we should have control. I think we should have at least 50 per cent of control with the federal government, with

[ Page 2875 ]

representation from the Prairie provinces who have an interest in these ports, as well as ourselves. But the residue of control should be, in my view, somewhere around the 50-50 mark between the province, if it's a maritime province, and the federal government.

I don't think we have seen any demonstration of interest in the development of our ports from the federal government through its agency — none whatsoever. I don't want to set up the whipsaw situation between ourselves and Quebec and the other ports which receive a great deal of federal assistance. But nevertheless, I do feel we have been particularly ignored by the federal government and I think they've got to pay for it now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, we'll approach them and see how far we do get, Mr. Member, if there's a Conservative government. I'm sure Prime Minister Lewis will assist us. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, he might. Shipbuilding. Now, really, this is in the purview of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I think it's also within our department's interest to increase the industry of shipbuilding in an economic and a reasonable way within this area. It is true that we haven't shipbuilding facilities to even cover some of our own needs, as demonstrated by the necessity of the Minister of Transport to seek a ferry for our immediate needs from Sweden. I think he did a good deal and it's another demonstration of this government's ability to handle its affairs in a businesslike manner. I congratulate the Minister for the purchase he has made.

I agree with you that it is regrettable that we didn't have the facilities here to build ships. It's regrettable that private enterprise has not responded to the need for ship construction here. I think they should be encouraged to do so; I think these kinds of things should take place. There are various things we should have done in Vancouver that are done elsewhere. We've got to increase those facilities and that expertise.

MR. WALLACE: Very quickly, just to follow up. It's all very well for the Minister just to say, well, private enterprise hasn't taken the initiative. But is the Minister and his department actively involved in discussing the matter with private industry and providing some incentive or proposals that would make it attractive to private enterprise? It's just too general a statement that we always get from the Minister.

It was the same with the steel thing. We get the answer that Western Canada Steel hasn't shown initiatives; we get told that the shipbuilding industry hasn't shown initiative. I just don't think that's good enough. I'd like to know if the Minister has had specific negotiations with the industry, and if not, will he initiate them and will he give us some outline of incentives.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry; I should have stated that. Yes, my department is in contact now with the local shipbuilders, such as they are, and requesting expansion. I think the response is favourable; I don't want to go into detail. Other aspects of the shipbuilding industry, I think, can be encouraged by the government in a great many ways. Some of those are rather general now. But I should say there are many alternatives and no specific ones have been chosen.

The Premier has indicated as long ago, I think, as a year and a half that this government — was interested in revitalizing the shipbuilding industry in this province. We have taken at least some steps in that direction and I hope other departments will take others.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I was interested in the remarks of the Minister regarding the development of port facilities in the Province of British Columbia. I'd like to spend a few minutes dealing with port facilities, particularly in northwestern British Columbia and specifically with the proposed development of the port facilities and enlargement of those facilities in the City of Prince Rupert.

While it is true that the whole development of that port facility and some of the attendant transportation facilities will hopefully be tied into development between the provincial and federal governments, I'd like to ask the Minister how he intends to convince any other level of government and the people of British Columbia that this is a necessity when other Members of the cabinet seem to work in divergent directions to your own.

It would seem to me that northern development is predicated on resource development to a great extent, at least for the foreseeable future. That resource development lies basically in two fields: the field of mineral exploration and development and in the field of timber and the lumber industry.

But if we listen to the statements of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)….

HON. MR. LAUK: Order!

MR. SMITH: Order? I'm not out of order by any stretch, Mr. Chairman. When we listen to the

[ Page 2876 ]

statements of other Ministers which have a direct effect on the development of any facilities….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just want to make the point that I have not ruled the Hon. Member out of order and I would ask him to address the Chair.

MR. SMITH: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me the Minister is very touchy about the establishment of order and the preservation of order in this House even before he knows what will be asked of him.

HON. MR. LAUK: We've heard the speech before, Ed.

MR. SMITH: Perhaps you have, and you're going to hear it again, Mr. Minister, because it is important and it's not an isolated matter; it's an integrated matter of development throughout all of British Columbia and particularly northwestern and north-central British Columbia.

If the port of Prince Rupert is to become the facility and the port it should become with respect to northern development, then it's incumbent upon the Minister to provide, as much as possible through his influence, an atmosphere which will create development. If, on the other hand, other Ministers of the Crown decide that the policy of their department is to restrict and retard development, then, Mr. Minister, I suggest you work with one hand tied behind your back. The investment you will ultimately be responsible for actively subscribing to and actively promoting will be to no avail if we do not take into consideration what we will do with the new transportation corridors, with the new railway extensions, and exactly what that will mean in terms of a return to the economy of the Province of British Columbia.

I think it is a position and a matter the Minister must look at most seriously. While you have a committee that works, I know, in conjunction with yourself and other cabinet Ministers, it does seem to me there is very great divergence of opinion between one cabinet Minister and the other. As a matter of fact, there are very contradictory positions taken at the present time. I think this is something the Minister should reconcile if he is to be effective in the portfolio he holds at the present time.

I'd like to refer to one other matter and that is a statement made by one of the NDP Members when he spoke in Kelowna. This Member was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries (Mr. Skelly). He was talking about the Province of British Columbia and presumably the policy of the government. He said the provincial government is determined to see public enterprise succeed in the forest-products field in British Columbia. I presume he used that field because that was the field he was asked to speak about.

"This means the government will use the most sophisticated technology available and will hire the best available staff, whether they come from Canada or abroad.

"If new technology or marketing information becomes available through the efforts of government-sponsored research, that technology and that information should be made available exclusively to public-owned industry.

"If private enterprise wishes to continue in the forest industry, it must do so as a competitor."

Well, there's a difference between continuing as a competitor and continuing on the basis of a preferred position being granted through use of taxpayers' money to Crown corporations.

One of the aspects of your portfolio is to provide money in certain instances, by way of grants to institutions — for instance, the B.C. Research Council — to help them in research activities in this province. As a matter of fact, the government from time to time calls upon the B.C. Research Council and other institutions to perform specific services in a defined area and come up with suggestions and ideas and recommendations.

I'd like to know, and I think it should be spelled out quite specifically by the Minister, where he stands with respect to the statement that was made by the Hon. MLA speaking to the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters in Kelowna. Does he agree that when the government provides certain grants or financial assistance to councils — to the research council or to any other organization — that that obliges that institution to do their research for the exclusive use of the Province of British Columbia or a Crown corporation of the Province of British Columbia?

Certainly that is the indication I get from reading the article and from listening to a quotation which is, I believe, a direct quotation from a speech made by that Hon. Member. Was he flying a balloon or a kite for the Minister of Industrial Development as well as the other resources Ministers in this province?

It's the type of statement we have heard before from backbenchers flying kites for cabinet Ministers. If it is not the policy of the government, then it certainly should be spelled out by this Minister before he receives his salary, because these are the type of statements that do more to destroy the credibility of the cabinet and the confidence that industry have in, their continued operations in this province than anything else I can think of. I would

[ Page 2877 ]

like the Minister to comment on that particular matter.

HON. MR. LAUK: Simply, I don't agree with the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member in question. This department will be continuing to administer the funds that are granted to the B.C. Research Council. We are satisfied as a government with the B.C. Research Council's progress and its programme and its history, which is a fairly sound one. We are using the B.C. Research Council as a client — not only as a granter, but as a client — in many, many instances for our own purposes. The B.C. Research Council should be and is available to private industry and private individuals to give them that kind of research base which is so necessary.

I would like to indicate that our department is ready, willing and able to supply information and its own research assistance to private industry. That's what we're setting those departments up for — as well as to advise government.

The development corporation will be interested not so much in taking equity in every case, but in very few cases. We'll be providing loans and guarantees — assistance to private enterprise.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Japanese trip that was taken was primarily in the interest, so far…. There were many things discussed in Japan that were of a government nature, but that was for the purpose of supplying steel to private users. That's the philosophy of the government. I don't particularly agree that we've been influenced in any way by that particular opinion of the Hon. Member that you mentioned.

With respect to the other point that you made, I am very, very proud of Bill 31. I think it's going to do a great job in providing the tax revenue for this province for all of those needs of the people of British Columbia to bring social justice to this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would request that the Hon. Members not get into a discussion of bills that are on the order paper.

MR. SMITH: I would have hoped the Hon. Chairman would have brought this to the attention of the Minister. I at no time referred to Bill 31 or any specific legislation before the House. I referred in general matters to a principle of development in this province that was incumbent upon the attitude of the government in order that the Port of Prince Rupert might be developed to its fullest capability.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I, too, want to deal with the matter of port development as it affects not only Prince Rupert and the City of Vancouver, but, indeed, all of the port facilities or the opportunity for the construction of port facilities which we have on our coastline for use in international maritime trade.

I read with interest the report of the Minister's remarks to the Vancouver Board of Trade. I thought it rather typical of the Minister, now that the federal cabinet Ministers and others are seeing fit to come forward and publicly kick the National Harbours Board and certain of its members around, that the Minister would jump on the bandwagon and take the same opportunity.

HON. MR. LAUK: You made the same speech a year ago, my friend.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think it is also significant, having made the same speech a year ago and having repeated it just this past week, that the Minister hasn't taken any positive action on the part of the Province of British Columbia to do anything about it. He admitted in this House today that all he has done in a constructive way is to draft a letter, which he's still looking at, to perhaps send to the federal government.

This is what has been wrong with port development in the Province of British Columbia for decades. The provincial government has always been quite satisfied to leave the matter of port planning and port administration and port finance to the national government. I have some constructive suggestions. I'm not going to belabour the Minister with comments about his performance, but I have some constructive suggestions, which I hope the Minister will accept in the manner in which they're given. It is an attempt to see whether we can't do something about a situation which is detrimental to British Columbia. In fact, it's detrimental to all of Canada.

When one looks at the situation, Mr. Chairman, the ports of the Pacific coast are Canada's ports on the Pacific. They are the end of the pipeline for all goods which this country might wish to move into international trade. It is also the end of the pipeline which receives from international trade those goods which Canada must have from other nations. In particular, the ports on our Pacific coast are the ports of western Canada.

While British Columbia may enjoy some very special benefits from its maritime location, they are not in any way British Columbia's ports. I think that this is the one fundamental basis upon which we must begin to examine the need for planning of port development which will improve the situation. They are not our ports. We get some special benefits in employment, both in the ports and in

[ Page 2878 ]

the service industries, but they're not ours. And we should not look upon them as such.

However, because of our particular interest in port development, I think that we must take a greater role than British Columbia has ever taken before in ensuring that the facilities are developed which will enable Canada to be properly served on the Pacific coast. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in the comments which he may send to Ottawa and in the deliberations which his government may have upon this subject, they consider the establishment of a British Columbia port authority — not the Harbour Commission that we currently have, but a British Columbia port authority which will have the responsibility of administering the ports on the Pacific coast.

That port authority, however, should have as members of its council or board of directors representatives of the other western provinces, a representative from the national government and also representatives from each of the local municipal areas wherein the port facilities themselves will be located.

I think that one of the examples that can best be looked upon in this latter respect for guidance is the City of Vancouver. There's no question that activities in the harbour of the City of Vancouver have been carried on without proper consideration of the consequences which those activities have for the city itself.

The city has never been involved as a partner in determining what development should or should not take place in the harbour, located as it is within the city boundaries. As a consequence, frictions have developed, and difficulties have been created through the port management and the port administration which the City of Vancouver has been obliged to adjust to. And this should stop. That's why, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister, in putting forward any proposal for a new port authority, a new administrative structure, will make certain that there is representation from the local governments or municipalities in whose areas those facilities are found.

Mr. Chairman, while the board of directors or the general council administering the port authority should have representations from these levels of government, I think it is absolutely essential that the administration of the port be carried on without government interference, and that the management and senior administrative staff of the port authority should be selected from people whose skill and experience will enable them to administer the port as a functioning part of our transportation system.

Indeed, the difficulties that we are experiencing with the National Harbours Board should surely convince the government of the wisdom of keeping its fingers out of the management of the port itself.

I suspect that any failures that there may have been — and there have been many — in the operation of the Port of Vancouver have resulted directly from political interference at the federal government level. And we must avoid the consequences of that interference if we are ever to solve the problems which we currently face today in the ports on the Pacific.

Having said these things, Mr. Chairman, I think it is also fair to say, however, that there has been a great deal of criticism of the operation of the Port of Vancouver which is not justified. There is no question, as far as the development of containerization facilities is concerned, that the Port of Vancouver has lagged behind. We have lost much of the business which could flow from the provision of those facilities to other ports and harbours. But a lot of the difficulties that confront us in the Port of Vancouver are caused by transportation failures outside of the port itself. Each day since Christmas, the middle of December, there have been from 12 to 14 to 16 ocean-going vessels at anchor awaiting cargoes in English Bay. They change, but still we have those 12 or 14 or 16 vessels.

The cost of demurrage which is borne by the shipper of goods is astronomic. Some vessels are leaving Vancouver with demurrage charges of $120,000 to $140,000. In the case of ships carrying grain cargoes, that demurrage charge is being paid by the Canadian Wheat Board and, in essence, by the Canadian taxpayer. And you wonder why.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the Canadian Wheat Board has sold Canadian wheat for delivery through the Port of Vancouver at times of the year when the Canadian Wheat Board should know that it cannot deliver grain of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantities to fill those orders. As a consequence, when the buyers of that grain, expecting to take delivery during December and January and February and March, dispatch ships to the Port of Vancouver to receive that grain, those ships cannot be berthed. There is no point in taking them in to berth because the cargoes are not available.

The facilities in the Port of Vancouver for the shipment of grain are sufficient today to handle twice the volumes — and they are record volumes, Mr. Chairman — which are passing through the Port of Vancouver. But the fact of the matter is that we can't get the grain from the Prairies to the Port of Vancouver in the quantities that are required to meet the orders. And that is the problem, too, Mr. Chairman, which must be taken into account in any change in our port facilities and in their management on the Pacific coast.

I trust that the Hon. Minister, when dealing with the matter of port facilities, will consider this additional problem of transportation by rail to the

[ Page 2879 ]

Pacific coast port of Vancouver.

There is another opportunity that we have, and that is to get on with the construction of the other major port facility — or capability, at any rate, that we have on the Pacific coast — which will perhaps overcome to a large extent some of the rail traffic problems which we are currently experiencing. That is the development of port facilities at Prince Rupert.

We have been told by the provincial government that discussions have been going on with the federal government, certainly since the fall of 1972, but those discussions went on long before that. I think it is time that those discussions came to a conclusion and that positive steps were undertaken to develop the port facility at Prince Rupert.

I would like this Minister to tell us and the people of British Columbia what it is that is holding it up. We know that there have been questions of finance so far as the federal government is concerned. It is my understanding that those are no longer a problem. We know that there have been problems with respect to environmental damage — the consequences of the estuary problem at the Port of Prince Rupert. It is my understanding that the federal Department of the Environment has conducted studies, has reached conclusions and has indicated that port construction can be proceeded with in Prince Rupert.

I would like to know if there is anything else that's holding up construction in Prince Rupert. Does the provincial government accept the studies and the financial aid available from the national government? Or does it also have some barrier to overcome before we are going to get on with the Port of Prince Rupert? The Port of Prince Rupert, as I say, will have one major advantage, and that is that the use of its facilities is not going to further encumber the rail lines which serve the ports in the southwestern part of this province.

The Port of Prince Rupert should also come within the administrative responsibility of what I have called the British Columbia Harbour Authority. So should Roberts Bank.

The development of these major port facilities and capabilities should move forward quickly with the cooperation of this government, the national government, the local governments involved, and all those organizations whose livelihood depends on and whose interests must rest in the development of maritime traffic.

For too long it has been one government blaming the other. It has always been convenient to raise the constitutional division of responsibility between British Columbia and Ottawa.

Rather than have the Minister write a letter to the national government, putting forward his concern, I would hope he and his colleagues in the Government of British Columbia could devise a management structure for the operation and planning of ports in British Columbia which they are prepared to accept, and carry it to Ottawa, urging its cooperation along with the other western provinces whose concern this port development must also be. Get on with the job of building on the Pacific coast ports that Canada needs and of which it can be proud.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to belabour this Japan trip, but I didn't tell the Minister that he had done nothing over there. He's the one who said he had done nothing. If the Minister wants to travel to Japan to discuss future economic development of this province, that's fine; I've nothing against that, Mr. Chairman.

I'm saying I don't want him to come back here and try and mislead the people of this province about what he has done when he went over there ill-prepared. He had to scratch the surface to find something to justify his trip.

He, as Minister, has justified going to Japan….

HON. MR. LAUK: You're an old nag, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I wish I didn't have to be an old nag. I wish the Minister of Industrial Development would do something so I don't have to stand here and nag him.

HON. MR. LAUK: You have a compulsion for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I haven't a compulsion. I'm one of the easiest Members in this House to get along with.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to know what steps this Minister plans to increase industrial activity in this province. Last Friday there was an announcement that a great industry was moving out of this province. I remember not too many months ago when the then Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) stood in this Legislature and said Du Pont is moving into Ashcroft with an explosives plant. Money was flowing in and industry was coming into this province, and we had to close the gate a little because they were coming in so swiftly.

But what happened to Du Pont? Du Pont had an explosive situation in British Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They're not coming in now.

MR. PHILLIPS: The whole deal blew up. It blew

[ Page 2880 ]

up in the government's face; it blew up in the Minister of Industrial Development's face. Last Friday Du Pont said, "We moved in here to serve the mining industry." That great piece of legislation the Minister is so proud of has lit the fuse. Bill 31 has lit the fuse and caused this explosives plant to pick up and move out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When the Hon. Minister was speaking I requested that there be no discussion of bills on the order paper. I would ask the Hon. Member to refrain.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would certainly be most pleased to abide by your ruling.

This Du Pont company is moving out after the expenditure of some $4 million and another large expenditure on behalf of the government to build a road to this explosives plant. Is this the type of work the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is doing? Did he consult with Du Pont and did they consult with him? Did he know they were moving out? Did he understand the reasons why they were moving out?

HON. MR. LAUK: Do you want me to answer that?

MR. PHILLIPS: It bothers me, because it's not only Du Pont. Let's take a look at a few more projects. "Cominco Defers Projects." "Newmont Quits British Columbia." I'm quoting from what's supposed to be an entertainment article by Lorne Parton in the April 20, 1974, Province. It's not very entertaining to me because he says:

"In one of the last deliveries before the mail chute hit the fan, a letter, with enclosure, from mining accountant M.R. Bertram.

"The enclosure was a subscription offer which the correspondent suggested be sent on to Mines Minister Leo Nimsick."

The publication was The Northern Miner Press.

" 'In the same publication it is interesting and alarming to note such as the following, all datelined Vancouver.' "

I've already mentioned two of them. It says: "Student jobs dwindling in face of B.C. royalty bill."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It appears the Hon. Member is bringing in information more properly brought in at the time of the debate on Bill 31. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the direct responsibilities of the Minister and the estimates before us.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I really want to say is that there are many more projects listed in this supposedly entertaining article — I didn't find it very entertaining — that are being deferred out of the Province of British Columbia.

I want to know what the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is doing about it. As I said before in this House — and I probably will have to say again — with $25 million at his disposal for nearly well over 12 months now, the Minister has done absolutely nothing.

For my enlightenment and the enlightenment of the rest of the House, I would like the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to stand on the floor of this Legislature and declare the projects he has had a hand in bringing in to the Province of British Columbia — as a matter of fact, any project that has come in since he has been Minister whether he had a hand in them or not.

You know something, Mr. Chairman: that will be the shortest speech he ever made. That Minister has done absolutely nothing. That Minister should be the nerve centre coordinating all industrial development in this province. Through his department should be coordinated activities in the forestry department; through his department should be coordinated activities in the mining department, as well as all of the other activities related directly to industries that have nothing to do with the resources of this province.

But the more I see and hear of the Minister, I feel he doesn't even talk to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). The reason? We want a copper smelter in British Columbia, and he didn't mention a copper smelter on his trip to Japan. The Minister of Mines says, "Well, we'll build our own copper smelter; we don't need any outside help." Those aren't the exact words he used, but he said we didn't need any help from a certain country or a certain people in that country. I won't quote the Minister because the words are very nasty, Mr. Chairman.

But he doesn't coordinate and he doesn't talk. We're talking about a large coal development in the Sukunka field. Who seems to be doing all the negotiating, Mr. Chairman? It's the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

The Minister announced that he had signed a great DREE programme with Ottawa. I'd like to know what benefits are going to be derived to the Province of British Columbia as of now from signing this agreement. Can an individual industry that is prepared to expand at this time deal directly with Ottawa? Can they get money? Or do we have to wait for the specific agreements?

I agree in principle that the whole province should be under the umbrella of a DREE programme, so that if there is an area anywhere that an industry should go into and is in line for receiving federal funds, and if it's feasible to put

[ Page 2881 ]

that particular industry in that particular area, then it shouldn't be that they have to move to an area which might not be economically feasible.

I agree with this in principle. But I would like to know if these specific agreements to do with hydro development, to do with mining development, to do with roads, to do with rebuilding the Alaska Highway, to build power dams and railway extensions — how are these agreements progressing? When are they going to come into being?

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

I remember in the 1972 spring session — I guess we'll have to call this the spring and summer session — when we talked about the effects of the petroleum legislation on the Peace River area. Why, immediately the Minister of Finance announced that he would send up a team to do a survey. To this date, this very day, I haven't seen the results of that.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce said he wasn't quite satisfied so they sent another group up last fall to survey as to what is really required in that great area. Has the survey been completed? What are the results?

We talk about the great development of that northern part of the province — we're going to build roads, we're going to build railroads, we're going to build power dams — but none of the people in the north really seem to know what you're going to do. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Industrial Development should go up there and consult with these people, let them know what's going on.

We're talking about expanding educational facilities in the north, particularly in the post-secondary field. But how can we plan educational programmes to train and equip our young people to go forward into industry and commerce if we haven't the foggiest idea what the economy of that area is going to be? Sounds logical to me, Mr. Chairman; I'm sure it sounds logical to you.

I get back to the fact and to the point that this great department and this great Minister, whose estimates we are discussing now, really should be the centre of government because the Department of Agriculture is going to depend on decisions emanating from this department, from this Minister. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who has to make decisions with regard to health facilities in the north country, is another area which is going to depend on decisions made by this Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce who should be coordinating all of the activity of that area. I could go right through the entire cabinet.

Decisions to be made by the Minister of Transportation and Communication (Hon. Mr. Strachan), estimates for future development are going to depend on decisions emanating from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this Minister understands the tremendous responsibility that rests on his shoulders for the direction of the entire government, and I could go through the whole cabinet. Any decisions that are made should be coordinated with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce because you have to have a tax base to work from. The Minister of Finance shouldn't even make decisions without coordination with this department because it is the all-important department in government; it is the most important department in government. Without providing jobs and commerce and a tax base, in what direction do we head? Where do we go?

I appreciate the step forward that has been taken by the Minister, but I would plead with the Minister that before these final DREE agreements are signed that he hold a conference, and hold it in the north. Invite in the elected officials; invite in the MPs; invite in the MLAs from that area; invite in the regional district people; invite in the local council.

HON. MR. LAUK: Another delay?

MR. PHILLIPS: Not another delay. Absolutely not. This isn't going to delay you one little iota.

HON. MR. LAUK: Just checking.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. Call a conference. Bring these people in and explain to them — let everybody get in. You talk about open government — let the local people know what's going to happen to their future so they can plan, so the city councils can plan, so the school boards can plan, so the hospital boards can plan, so we know where we're going. Then, Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister will pick up some ideas. But it's not a delay, absolutely no delay. The Minister hasn't done anything so far and heaven knows that I wouldn't want to suggest anything that would delay him further.

He hasn't even told me during his estimates where he's going. If he had said, "Look, this is what we've done. These are the reasons we haven't done something, but these are our plans. This is where we plan to go. This is how we plan to coordinate all of the departments of government. This is how we plan to use this $25 million that was given to us," then people would have some idea of the direction and we wouldn't have to keep, as the Minister said — what term did he use a little while ago? — harping, nagging. We'd like to know.

The Minister wants us to vote him $4,332,391.

[ Page 2882 ]

We voted him about half that amount last year, and I can't really see one specific instance — maybe one, maybe the steel — where the taxpayers' money has been well spent. If we'd had no department last year, none whatsoever, we wouldn't be any further behind. This grieves me because I was really looking forward to seeing this Minister function, seeing him come up with some new and fresh ideas, some concrete suggestions and, above all, some action. But all we've got is a series of industries that are saying, "Thank you, but we've got our bellyful of British Columbia and we're moving out; we're moving into the Yukon or we're moving into the North West Territories." This sickens my heart. It bothers me, Mr. Chairman, because there's been a lot of hard work and effort go into building this province, into providing the great tax base that it now has so that this socialist government can carry out some of its social programmes.

What really bothered me is that if this Minister doesn't function and doesn't do his job, the tax base will disappear and so will the social programmes. Either that or you'll have to go into debt which my children and their grandchildren will be paying off in years and years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister will once again give me his comments as to why some of these industries are moving out, what he's doing, what he's done, where he's going, and take to heart my suggestion to have this conference. Let's, for heaven's sake, get this department on the road. Let's get all the cabinet Ministers speaking to one another. Let's not have one going off in one direction, such as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources not even consulting with the Minister of Development — the Minister of Mines taking off in another direction. It reminds me of a wagon wheel, with each cabinet Minister sort of going off in a different direction, going round and round and getting nowhere. You're being pulled along, Mr. Chairman. This wagon wheel is being pulled along by world economics. And if it weren't for world economics, the high price of our minerals, the high price of our lumber and the great demand for the rest of our natural resources, this province would slide backwards. What we need is a great deal of forward thinking and forward planning. I'm disappointed that none of that has emanated from this particular Minister. I want him to stand up and apologize for what he's done and tell us where he's going.

HON. MR. LAUK: As I was listening to the Member for South Peace River, I was reminded of a story that the Minister of Health told me, just having returned from that area of the country. He said he was talking to a member of the Hon. Member for South Peace River's constituency who asked the Hon. Minister of Health, "You've got an awful long session down there; we don't see much of our MLA." And the Minister of Health said, "Yes, that's true." The constituent said, "Do you think you could run it a little longer?" (Laughter.) But I don't see why that person would say such a thing because you're such a lovable person and you're so easy to get along with. I think you're full of hot air, but you're easy to get along with.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vicious attack. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: The Member from South Peace River says that my department should be the nerve centre of the government.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not the nervous centre.

HON. MR. LAUK: He said that we haven't done anything since my appointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. LAUK: I shouldn't repeat the Hon. Member's speech, but I recall the former administration's Minister, Waldo Skillings — there was a nerve centre, eh? That was the kind of nerve centre that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) should have a look at. That's more in his line of nerves.

MR. WALLACE: That was one-punch Waldo.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now, you just relax. Use your own material. (Laughter.)

The Hon. Member for South Peace River mentioned Du Pont. The other day two executives of Du Pont from Montreal flew out and came to see me and said, "Mr. Minister, I'm concerned about the statements made by the leader of the Social Credit party with respect to the closure of Du Pont."

I said: "What's your concern?" He said: "We closed Du Pont because we had made a serious blunder in our market analysis, and we have the papers here to show you where we blundered." So the statements made by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and his leader (Mr. Bennett) were manifestly incorrect and conjured up by themselves.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Why don't you check with the executives of the company? They are not going to spend that much money and close the place down because of some fanciful reason that you've suggested. The reason is clearly this: they misread

[ Page 2883 ]

the market for small-bore explosives, not total or bulk explosives.

MR. PHILLIPS: They misread the socialist government, that's what they misread.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Ashcroft company was supposed to be for the small-bore type of explosives. They had unexpected cost overruns, and with respect to the market analysis they were completely wrong, and that's why they've had to close down. I'm surprised because Du Pont is not a Crown corporation. I thought only Crown corporations under a socialist government were supposed to make stupid mistakes like that, not private enterprise. I'm amazed.

MR. WALLACE: They're the best example.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, anyway, they can….

MR. McGEER: They do a few things right, too.

HON. MR. LAUK: There's one thing about doctors, Mr. Chairman: they can't correct their mistakes the next day. The Hon. Member raised another few points and I'll deal with them briefly. The problems you mention — that we haven't been communicating in cabinet with a copper smelter — the joint study committee happens to be made up of officials and consultants that represent two Ministries.

MR. PHILLIPS: After we suggested it to you.

HON. MR. LAUK: Not after. This committee was appointed and agreed upon between the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and myself some months ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's our suggestion. After we prodded you to get something going.

HON. MR. LAUK: There he is with his imaginary sword, stabbing into the wind again. Non-issues, just purely his very productive imagination.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell me what you've done.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm just as frustrated with the delays to get things done as anyone else. I'm just as frustrated as you are, Mr. Member. I want to get them done.

The BCDC executive committee has just approved its first several small business loans which should be announced soon, in the next few days. There is a programme of land banking for industrial purposes going on in the province….

MR. PHILLIPS: Leave that for the Minister of Lands.

HON. MR. LAUK: He says "Leave it to the Minister of Lands." Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that's not what the mayors and aldermen of the municipalities in your riding have been telling me for the past several months. You should go back and check with them instead of being very windy in these chambers. Turn on a big ear up there and you'll learn something and you might save your seat, though I doubt it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Awful windy! You haven't said anything yet.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — he's not present. I was going to answer some of his points.

I agree substantially with his comments on port facilities. But I should point out that I did make the speech on the port authority situation a year ago and since that time we've done more than just sit around and grumble about it, even though we cannot develop our own facilities without the complete cooperation of the National Harbours Board. Not because we can be legally prevented from doing it, only in some cases, but because their cooperation is absolutely necessary for it to be successful.

He raised the very issue that makes it necessary and that's national transportation — the whole planning of the network of transporting bulk cargo and other cargo through the port of Vancouver and other ports in this Maritime province. What he's saying is: "Well, in a year you should have singlehandedly amended the BNA Act," and only the Parliament in Westminster can amend that Act.

It's very frustrating and I think we should have the kind of port authority that he suggested. I think his suggestion for local municipality representation is an excellent one. He raised the point about grain to Vancouver, and several problems occurred. I think part of it has to be a discussion of the terminal railway situation in Vancouver. After some pressure by me personally and the government generally, the Transportation Act has finally been tabled.

I'm sure other Ministers in other provinces have been putting on that pressure. We are most disturbed at the delay for that very vital piece of federal legislation which will help clear up the terminal railway situation in Vancouver and in many other jurisdictions as well.

Grain supply. There has been a railcar shortage

[ Page 2884 ]

of grain as well. The Prairie collector system, the branch lines and so on of the collector system in the Prairies are in disrepair. The country elevator system, which is caused by the 1890 Crow's Nest Grain Rate Act, is another problem — no central clearing house for grain and so on.

There's a slowdown on the railroads currently and so on, so you are always going to see ships of one description and another in our harbour. If it's not grain, it's something else.

The major issue is the one he raised, which is national transportation and that kind of planning.

With respect to Prince Rupert, already under the agreement there is a general commodity wharf being constructed at Fraser View. The only thing preventing the further bulk loading thing from proceeding, it seems to me, are the environmental studies, and we'll have to wait patiently for those. I think those were substantially the points that were raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) just had a supplementary, and then I'll go on.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister, Mr. Chairman, didn't advise me whether he would consider having a conference in the north to….

HON. MR. LAUK: Mayor Bob Trail has already announced that they'll be having a conference there in late May or early June.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Chairman. Where is it going to be? In Prince George or Dawson Creek?

HON. MR. LAUK: It'll be in the Peace River region.

MR. PHILLIPS: In the Peace River region. Well, maybe we're going to get a little action. But the thing that really disturbs me…

HON. MR. LAUK: It was announced a week ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: …in that lengthy talk that the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, just finished, is that he still didn't tell us one thing that his department has done nor did he tell us what his plans are.

Normally a Minister of the Crown advises the House what his plans are but about all he could do, Mr. Chairman, was attack me — which is fine. I find it very difficult to get mad at this Minister because….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Really, I find it very difficult to get mad at him because it's sort of like a joke. The whole department is like a joke.

I was just looking around here a short time ago, Mr. Chairman, and this is a magazine "British Columbia Industry. The Business of British Columbia, second quarter, 1973." The Minister's smiling face is on the front with a picture of a blast furnace. He has a lot of talk about the steel industry and where British Columbia is heading. It's pretty well all theory.

HON. MR. LAUK: Would you like me to autograph it?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I don't need it autographed. But there's one little article here, one quotation from him, Mr. Chairman. It says "Never forget that the whole country was built on a pipe-dream and a pipe-dream that worked."

Well, I honestly believe that that is the Minister's theory. He thinks that he's going to sit around and pipe-dream and all of a sudden something's going to happen. But if he feels that this country was developed on a pipe-dream and that this province was built on a pipe-dream, he's got another think a-coming. Because, Mr. Chairman, this great nation of ours was built on long-range planning and a lot of discussion, a lot of energy, and on decisions that were made — large decisions — decisions that were made with people who were old enough to make those decisions and who had the energy and the courage to carry them forward. No pipe-dream, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LAUK: Son of Phil Gaglardi.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I presented the Minister with a proposal back in January. It was a good proposal from a young fellow who has courage and energy and who is a bit of an entrepreneur. He has good ideas. Everything he's gone into has been successful.

This man wants to provide a plan to build a small version of an all-terrain vehicle which is used by practically all the oil nations in the world in the northern part of development. This is a smaller version so that smaller independent companies, and indeed the big companies, could use it, because it would cut the expense in approximately half.

But I provided this Minister with this, and he keeps telling me that he's studying it, and it's over four months and this man hasn't received a decision. When we first talked to his estimates he read a letter from me — which I suppose I should have gone out and printed — showing all of the

[ Page 2885 ]

reasons why this should have gone ahead, but the proposal is quite self-explanatory.

There's a letter in there from the proposer stating that he has his blueprints. But it is indecision that is killing this province — indecision! Tell the man, "No, we're not going to go along with you," so he can go elsewhere and get his financing, or move to another province. There are other projects that are waiting for decisions.

When I ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, he says, "Well, it takes us a long time to hire people." We'd better put the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in there, because he organized a $20 million corporation in less time than it takes this Minister to make a decision. Now I ask you: is that performance? No. He says: "We've hired people and we're going to be making decisions very shortly."

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the Industrial Development Bank of Canada, which has trained people — and I guess over the years they have built up a reservoir of people who can make decisions…. But if it took the Industrial Development Bank of Canada as long to make a decision as it does your Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, or Economic Expansion, or whatever you are going to call it, that bank wouldn't be loaning out any money.

All you have to do is look at a situation, make a decision, and say yes or no. I predict that you are going to make some wrong decisions; but if you have the proper security, you'll be safeguarded.

But I predict that in the next three to four years there will be more done by the Industrial Development Bank of Canada in assisting secondary industry in the Province of British Columbia than will be done by the Department of Economic Expansion, because finally, under pressure from the Premier of the Province of Alberta (Hon. Mr. Lougheed), our Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Trudeau) has agreed to let the Industrial Development Bank be the vehicle to assist small business and light industry in western Canada.

Today, Mr. Chairman, they not only have the money, but they're willing to make decisions and they are willing to give assistance, while our Minister sits back and says, "I must get my department organized." So I think that you will have to agree with me. I'm not frustrated; I'm disappointed in this Minister — disappointed in his department. Further, I am disappointed because no decisions are emanating from that Minister.

But you, to the people whose proposals you have on your desk, should give them a decision — yes or no. The Minister must learn in the future that he must make decisions and he must make them rapidly, because it is not like a court of law where you have time and months to prepare your case.

Business doesn't function that slowly. Business decisions have to be made on the spur of the moment, and you must have the know-how and the experience to make those decisions. I'm afraid the Minister is ill-equipped.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I must admit, in listening to this debate, that I think the Minister has certainly done a few things in the province — in disagreement with my colleague. He has certainly proved during his estimates that he's the gnome of hide and seek, because, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, we've received no answers of a positive nature as to what your policy is, and no answers of a positive nature that we can take back to the constituents we represent.

We've received no concrete answers in relation to serious questions that have been put to you in terms of your conduct as Minister in Japan, nor have we in terms of your conduct in relation to land acquisitions in British Columbia.

You have done the things, Mr. Minister, that were mentioned by my colleague. You've bought a desk, et cetera, for $85,000. You've proved beyond a doubt that you're a fink and foe of the fish and fowl and the people of this province in the Tilbury Island area.

You've brought before the public, Mr. Minister, the real intent of what the land freeze put on by this government was.

I want to go back to Tilbury Island. Why do I say you're the fink and foe of fish and fowl in that area? Because, one, you don't talk to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), as witnessed by your own words, and, two, you've shown no indication that you are aware that this is one of the finest sturgeon banks there is in the western part of this continent. And you've shown no responsiveness to what in fact turned out to be broken commitments by your government.

I want to know what your policy and what your excuse is in relation to the fact that in September at the Man and Resources Conference in Naramata, which was partially paid for by the government through the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and which was a basic semi-conclusion of a programme started in cooperation with the federal government by the former administration to bring together people and ideas and help get public input into this most serious and complex question of resolving the natural interests, the economic interests, the people interests and industrial interests when we're dealing with land in this province….

I will read for your information, Mr. Minister, a resolution that was passed at that conference while your colleague was present, and which was forwarded to your Premier and to your colleagues

[ Page 2886 ]

and presumably to yourself at that time.

"As a matter of special urgent concern, this conference expresses to the provincial government its wholehearted opposition to any further use of agricultural land in the Fraser Delta for port or industrial purposes."

Mr. Minister, it was shortly after that that you called a glorious press conference and sat in your element as the picture in the "Economics B.C." magazine depicted and announced that you had solved all the problems and you were taking Tilbury Island as an industrial park.

I recognized that in the overall viewing of what might be the former administration there was a suggestion that this would be a site; there's nothing wrong with that. Where it is wrong, Mr. Minister, is the fact that your government, through you as Minister, refused to heed any of your election promises, refused to heed any of your policies and, more important, refused to heed the various requests for studies that were before your government — in fact, studies that were going on by the federal government at that time in terms of what might be the best way to use that land, what might be the best way to develop industrial sites and to locate industrial sites in the lower Fraser Valley.

That is what I condemn you for, Mr. Minister, because it was made clear to your government by this conference. Also, Mr. Minister, you and your government received a letter from the British Columbia Environmental Council, under the date of September 25, 1973, in which they asked if the rumours regarding further alienation of lands within the Delta area — the Delta estuary area, the lower Fraser Valley area — for industrial purposes were true; and if in fact they were true, then they would very much like to have studies completed and hold public hearings in order that interested parties could put forth their views and their arguments.

Some two months later they had not even received an answer from your government. But in the meantime, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce had taken over some of this land.

I would like to know, Mr. Minister, how you can possibly explain this — how you can possibly explain, in light of your government's policy, that on November 30, at a public meeting of environmental biologists, during the course of his address, Mr. Crerar, who is the director of the government's Environment and Land Use Secretariat, who was the guest speaker, stated that the Environment and Land Use Secretariat dealt with problems and conflicts between resource departments.

He stated to the meeting that they listened to all sides of the question and the problem and they come up with the best advice possible for the government, and that it is then that this government is committed to act — not before, Mr. Minister, but then.

He talked in terms of the concern between the conflict of farmland and industry and fishing and wildlife and the port and recreation within the specific area, Mr. Minister, that we are talking about.

At that meeting, Mr. Minister, just two days after the announcement by yourself and after some of your statements on the air that you felt that this was quite a compatible programme, Mr. Crerar was asked what studies had been undertaken before Hon. Mr. Lauk's announcement. Do you know what he said, Mr. Chairman? He said, "None that I know of." Then the question was put: "Wouldn't this be the responsibility of your secretariat?" Mr. Crerar said, "No, there are two decision-making bodies involved: the B.C. Land Commission and the Greater Vancouver Regional District."

Then Mr. Crerar was questioned: "Who would make the decision?" And Mr. Crerar said: "I don't know."

Mr. Minister, you obviously have tremendous conflict within your government, and everyone is running around in circles and doesn't know what they're doing. Or you as Minister chose to ignore the inadequacies of the preparation for a decision such as you made and arbitrarily made a decision without consideration of the people's wishes, without consideration to your colleagues wishes in terms of proper wildfowl and wildlife and recreational management of that area.

Did you, Mr. Minister, before you made that announcement, consult with the B.C. Land Commission, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), Mr. Crerar or any members of the Environment and Land Use Secretariat, and did you in fact consult with Dr. Lecate, who at the time is doing a study on the inventory, who has a task force studying this area and whose report was due to be available in March, 1974?

HON. MR. LAUK: Is this the federal government?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, which makes it all the worse, Mr. Minister, because you're standing up here talking about the lack of cooperation that you're getting from the federal government and what big, bad boys they are, and how you're a poor little Minister fighting for the rights of British Columbia, when in fact you've got evidence here that you just flaunt them. No wonder they want to punch you in the nose.

[ Page 2887 ]

I want to know, Mr. Minister, how you reconcile the fact that in The Vancouver Sun on December 5, 1972, the now Premier of this province, the then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, had a statement under the headlines, "Barrett Says Environment Top Issue in Squamish Plan."

He stated in that instance that when he was Premier he would rely on the advice of experts commissioned by his government and public input, and that no industrial development would take place in this province and no major decisions on these subjects would be made in this province without the input of all interested parties.

Now how can you reconcile your action in the Tilbury Island situation, Mr. Minister? I want to ask you, has a study been made of the need of such an industrial park and port development? Why isn't the study available to the Legislature? Has there been a complete inventory — as was started by the former administration — under your colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), a complete study and inventory of the B.C. coastline to determine where such a port could be situated with the least amount of environmental disruption? If so, will you file this report with this House?

Then, Mr. Minister, I'd like to know in relation to the land, has there been an investigation by proper agricultural authorities and economists and some practical farmers into the claim by the six lower mainland farmers in the Delta area that their operations will no longer be viable with the interruptions made by your land purchases.

Mr. Minister, how do you reconcile the motherhood wrappings with which the land freeze, Bill 42, came into this Legislature and was presented to the people of British Columbia in light of your statements on CBC, which I heard myself, when they were discussing with you the acquisition of this land?

You admitted then the lack of studies and preparations that you had done, and the fact that you purchased this land at fire sale prices, that you depressed the value of this agricultural land through the land freeze, and that in fact you had agents working on behalf of your government at a time when these farmers were hopelessly involved in uneconomic production and knew that all agricultural land was suffering an unrealistic depression in price owing to the land freeze and the problems in agriculture.

You admitted then, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the only purpose of the land freeze was not just to preserve agricultural land. You admitted under questioning that in fact it indeed serves a purpose by providing cheap land for the government to develop industrial sites.

Mr. Minister, land in the Okanagan, land in the Salmon Arm area, land in the Kootenays, is selling for $6,000 and $7,000 an acre. The land that you purchased for that price is well worth a good deal more than that; I would venture to say on the basis of this being declared an industrial site, the fact that they were not on an open market, the fact that people knew their land was frozen, cheated them out of a return as much as $20,000 or $30,000 an acre.

That, Mr. Minister, is not a matter of government going out and buying land in an area where all land is open and for sale, and an agent comes along and people have a decision. Those farmers were at a complete disadvantage because they believed their land was frozen forever and zoned forever as agriculture. They were sitting in a depressed market on agricultural land and — through you, Mr. Chairman — you, as Minister, took advantage of those farmers and ripped them off of their rightful profit.

I think that's despicable. Don't come back to me and talk about the purchasing of land in the lower mainland for the backup land, because there was no freeze on those lands in those days, the market was not depressed, and there was no pressure on those farmers to sell. If they did….

HON. MR. LAUK: How much an acre?

MRS. JORDAN: I know some of them went $2,000, $3,000 an acre. But you compare that to the economic situation today and the imposition and the underprivileged position that your government put those farmers in, it's a kettle of an entirely different steam. They were steam-rollered.

I want to know, Mr. Minister, how you intend to compensate those farmers and producers. I also want to know if there is any truth to the fact that there's been a study to determine whether or not drainage in the adjacent areas will be disrupted by the change in use and the loading of this 700-odd acres which will have to go on in preparation for industrial development.

What studies has your colleague done that you're aware of regarding the future of the fishing industry in that area with particular reference to the sturgeon and the wildfowl? I'm aware that it's not a prime wildfowl area, but it is an important wildfowl area. Did you, Mr., Minister, consider other potential sites that would be less of a conflict?

There are some other matters that I would like to discuss with the Minister, Mr. Chairman. One is the garment industry or the so-called needle trade in British Columbia. When I left my post in the former government, I had been very interested in the garment industry in British Columbia which was coming on strong in terms of design, in terms of

[ Page 2888 ]

quality of workmanship. Most of our B.C. garments could compete very effectively in eastern markets and also in American markets and had a good chance of taking a position in off-shore markets.

The major problem confronting them was the matter of buying. The policy at that time, and I really believe it hasn't changed, was that major buyers in the east for major concerns buy solely in the east. Western buyers for such chains as Hudson Bay or Eaton's can only buy B.C. garments for the western provinces. They couldn't buy for the whole of Canada.

We were endeavouring to meet with these people in order to have them adopt a policy where their buyers, for their national chains, would come west and would have an opportunity to see the variety of garments that we can produce in British Columbia. Not only garments but in other areas.

The problem is that our garment producers face higher labour charges, higher cost of production, higher rent, higher taxes in terms of their buildings now. On top of that, they must take all their samples to the east in order to display them. This is an added cost, and it's also a cost in terms of time of their salesmen or the manager, whoever takes the garments east.

There was a good opportunity to expand our acceptance of the American market, and I feel very strongly that the former administration let down the garment industry very badly at the San Francisco trade fair which took place eventually under your government. There should have been a greater emphasis on some of our smaller products that we can manufacture here, and there should have been a much greater emphasis on the garment industry itself.

I'd like to know how we are faring in Fashion Canada. We were trying to work out a programme whereby the provincial government would put up the fee for small manufacturers such as Elizabeth Gordon, which makes lingerie, nursing mothers' blouses and dresses. They have a select market. They also incidentally did some of Mrs. Trudeau's maternity garments. But they're small and they're not big enough to get the financing to go and display their garments and also to enter Fashion Canada.

We had a programme evolving whereby the government would put up the entry fee and contribute to their fare back, and the entry fee is refunded if they win and that was to go back to the government. I wonder if this was being continued.

I hope that some of these small industries, such as Elizabeth Gordon, who at that time were interested in low-cost money, will have an opportunity to take advantage of loans under the British Columbia Development Corporation.

What is the department doing now in terms of liaison with the Department of Labour and the Department of Education in order to work out an opportunity whereby young British Columbians who have a flair for design have an opportunity to take some training, hopefully, in British Columbia with British Columbian garment manufacturers and then go on to some more sophisticated training schools in the east? I think there are one or two in the east that are very good, also within the States.

We have talent in British Columbia, Mr. Minister. We have some good examples, and your department knows of them. But the problem is that with all the economic problems…. For example, a lot of our fabrics have to come in: they come through the Vancouver port; they don't stop here; they go all the way to Montreal, and then they have to come back to British Columbia, and this is an added cost. So when you combine these factors and the problem that the western garment manufacturer has in terms of reaching his big market — the extra costs — you get failure rate in terms of one or two people who get off the ground in terms of design and in terms of developing a company, and they just can't make it. The grade is too steep.

I would encourage the Minister to look into this and set up a programme whereby young people who have a flair for design can work within the garment industry here for some experience. Then if they can't train here, they can have some assistance to go back east.

This is a good industry, Mr. Minister. It employs a lot of people. It's an excellent industry for handicapped people to work in. Deaf people can work in the garment industry very well, because one of the problems in cloth manufacturing is noise, and this doesn't bother them at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, call the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to order.

MRS. JORDAN: Gosh, the nurse must have given him a sleeping pill. (Laughter.) It's not Coke Cocke, it's Nembutal Cocke.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's Geritol.

MRS. JORDAN: No, that's the A-G, and he's gone out to have his hit. (Laughter.)

Mr. Minister, two other things I want to ask you in terms of statements you've made. You've repeated over and over again this great land banking programme that you and your government are on for many reasons, but your particular point is industrial sites, and this is a panicking thought to many people around this province, and to myself particularly because you're putting yourself and your government in a position of unfair competition and conflict of interest. If you're developing all industrial sites on the lower mainland — one at

[ Page 2889 ]

Squamish — I understand that's not going to be just railcar development; there are going to be other industries encouraged in there. You've got Tilbury Island which you're butchering to pieces to put up a bunch of industries, and you've got other industrial sites developing here plus the B.C. Hydro ones in the north and others that you're aware of. Let's face it, there is just not going to be that much industry developed or come to British Columbia that fast.

Around this province in many smaller communities we have private industrial parks where people have put up there own money, often at great encouragement from the community, so that there are industrial areas for them to use as attractions. Now who's going to get the industry? What chance does Nakusp have?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Seriously, what chance does Cranbrook, for example, have to compete with your Tilbury Island situation?

Unless you can equalize this some way, and I don't recommend subsidies, you're going to leave a lot of municipalities with taxpayers' money involved and a lot of private industrial sites where they cannot possibly compete with big government. This is where I say you're going to be in a position of conflict of interest, and that it is unfair to be using tax dollars to compete with tax dollars because of two levels of government, and to use tax dollars to compete with private industry and private investment.

Another matter that leads from that — it ties in both with that and with another instance that I want to bring to your attention — it's this whole matter of rail lines and railway spurs. I'd like to know what the Minister has done in terms of negotiating with the federal government, or through the CP and the CN, and the atrocious programme they have for industrial sites and individuals putting in spur rail lines.

One specific instance that I'd like to give you is the B.C. distributor for a product that's produced in Quebec. He is centered in the Okanagan — he's in Vernon, as a matter of fact — and we fought very hard to convince the eastern manufacturer that you could, in fact, have a major distribution for the province outside the metropolitan area. We did it economically; we did it on the basis of publicity programmes. We even got to the point where we had to have some races to prove that we could generate the type of publicity that you need to complement your whole public relations programme of selling a product.

Now they've moved to a large warehouse, and they have to put in a spur line from the CN-CP rail, it's a common rail. And they have to pay for the putting in of the rail, then they have to pay for the use of the rail, and if they don't use the rail so much, they have to pay to take it out. It seems to me this is a stupid policy to be condoned by the federal government, and it's a policy that must be changed. This is just another nail in the coffin of the west which the east likes to put there.

Also this applies, Mr. Minister, to industrial sites, as you're aware. This is all right for government with its massive financial backing to, perhaps, be able to sit there for 10 years with this type of cost, but it's questionable whether a municipality, and a smaller municipality, can afford to carry not only the long-term cost of water, sewer, landscaping and road building in industrial sites, let alone the acquisition of the land. But to have this type of extra cost imposed, unless they have an assured picture of being able to amortize their investment over a specified period of years or unless, in fact, they have a guarantee that they're going to get enough industry in there to at least balance the books….

I bring this to your attention, as far as the railway is concerned, as a matter of an individual situation which appears grossly unfair, and to ask what you have done about this. If you haven't, I would urge you to talk to these fellows here on my left immediately. If they won't listen, get on the hot-line to the major railways and see that this is changed and put on a much fairer basis.

It's their own land; it isn't railway right-of-way. It's their own private land; they had to buy the land as well.

Then in terms of how this is going to affect small municipal industrial sites which are developed with taxpayers' money…. Then again the situation where small individuals — and there are lots of small individuals in this province — have put their money into developing industrial sites as a long-term investment for their own security, not as a rip-off, as so many people are fond of saying. I would invite the Minister's comments on these subjects.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Hon. Member for some very constructive suggestions. Firstly, with respect to the Tilbury Island assembly — it's really not on the island itself — we will not proceed with any kind of port development in that area without a thorough and complete estuarial study. We're certainly waiting for the federal study which is concerned with the estuarial situation in the Fraser River.

We would like to plan, and we have not definitely set our plans, finalized our plans, for the area in terms of tenancy or the use of the land in an industrial way until we are clear in our own

[ Page 2890 ]

minds as to the kind if industry that would be of absolutely no harm whatsoever to the area.

We have accumulated a lot of land, and I must emphasize that not every last inch of 726 acres is going to have industry on it. I'm interested seriously in the buffer zone between the park and the neighbouring farmers. We have had studies on drainage, and you raised that. I don't think that's going to be a problem at all, and certainly we'll take steps to protect the farmer if there is a problem, but I'm told there isn't.

We've got a lot of land, and also there's other land available — if you know what I mean — of lesser agricultural quality in the area already industrialized. I think a total plan is what's needed for the area, and this is what we're doing now. You say that the land freeze depressed the value of the land when we were purchasing it. Well, I just can't agree….

MRS. JORDAN: Agriculture land — you ignored other land.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's right, but I disagree with you as to what happened in fact when we accumulated the land in this area. Our agents, and they were agents of the government….

MRS. JORDAN: Block Bros.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, I won't mention who for now. Government agents were in the area. They were experienced, reputable real estate people and good appraisers. They went into the area and appraised the land. They approached the owner and he told them, "This is being accumulated for industrial purposes."

At that time there was a clear understanding that that area, which has been zoned industrially since 1966, would be industrial land. Now the prices themselves…. On the CBC programme it was a bit low — I think it is a little higher.

MRS. JORDAN: They accused you of from $3,000 to $4,000.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes.

MRS. JORDAN: You said no — that some went to $6,000 and one to $7,000.

HON. MR. LAUK: I think the average was $6,000 to $7,000, if I am not mistaken. Haven't done an average.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you give us those figures?

HON. MR. LAUK: Sure, I will provide you with them and send them across. But that was my impression — about $6,000 or $7,000 an acre, which was not cheap last year, remember, when we were accumulating this land. Certainly those are not agricultural land prices; those are industrial land prices. In some areas the price per acre is extravagantly high, and I don't want to get involved in protecting the land speculator by openly announcing that we are accumulating land and having prices go up. So I don't agree with you on that point.

The textile situation — the garment manufacturing, really — is facing a very, very serious problem in terms of fabric importation, the raw material. That's a problem that Canada has to face. We have no raw materials for textiles and garment manufacturing. We artificially protect central Canadian textile manufacturers to the consumer detriment out here, an example of which is what you talked about in terms of importing some garments and textiles, having them go to Montreal and their shipped back to us. That's one of many examples of the protective system that works for central Canadian manufacturers. But they have a major problem in raw material supply.

I certainly like your idea of smaller producers being represented not only at trade fairs and perhaps on a trade mission, and I am certainly going to advise my Deputy to review that situation and make a few changes.

Designers as well — that was a good suggestion. I think that Douglas College has a good designing school. It could be expanded. We will go and have a look at it to see if we can't be of assistance to them.

I agree with you entirely on the rail lines. It is a federal problem with that transportation Act and hopefully it will be solved.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a couple of points. I guess we could go forever about whether you ripped off the poor old farmers. I still feel that they were at a disadvantage at those negotiations. I feel that if you've got $6,000 an acre there, there's very little way that they could re-assemble the farm unless it was in the Peace River area, which is a decided change from what they are used to in terms of farming and requires very different farming practices. So my position on that stands.

I would just like to ask you — and I do appreciate your response regarding the B.C. garment industry because it's got a future if we can manage it — did you, when you were in Japan, do any negotiating or explore the opportunity of a better situation to import oriental fabrics — Japanese fabrics, I suppose, more specifically — at a better rate, and perhaps consider a centralized receiving

[ Page 2891 ]

depot so that smaller fabric sales people around the province, for example, could submit their orders to a central area and then have one bulk supply come in? This would help them. They wouldn't have to go east.

The other question is…. I don't know whether it has been asked, but I want to know how you fared on your fishing expedition in Japan. My understanding is that they are most accomplished in producing lobster and fish which are adaptable to the eastern coast, and their greatest expertise is in Kokanee and carp. We are pretty good at Kokanee here, to the point where they come to British Columbia to study our Kokanee production, and I assure you, Mr. Minister, that if you feel that there is a market for carp in this province I will personally deliver to your door, out of just one lake in this province, 1,000 pounds of carp a day. So I really wonder what you did and what justification you had for that statement regarding some fishy economic diplomacy.

HON. MR. LAUK: I am taking your remarks under advisement with respect to the garment industry, as I have stated. We did have only a very incidental discussion in Hong Kong with respect to the importing of fabrics from mainland China as well as from other points of Asia with some of the industrialists there, but it wasn't a specific type of thing. We haven't thought about it in any detail since the Japanese trip.

As far as the trip up to Chuzenji Lake, there were a couple of unique things there, but not enough for the long trip up that mountain and back down again — that's a day I'll never forget!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of items I wish to talk to the Minister about or ask questions about. A number of the other Members who have spoken earlier have commented about the Minister's delay in getting things done and the delay in getting action from his department, and I just want to mention briefly a problem in connection with Expo in Spokane, which started last November when I made a first approach to the department about getting a school band to Expo, getting official recognition by the province for this school band. It has been going on since November. The school wanted to make their trip in the middle of May. I finally got an answer from the people involved in the school band, who told me that they had given up. They are going to Portland instead.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. McCLELLAND: It was the Fort Langley school band — about 100 kids who wanted to go to Expo. They didn't want any money, incidentally; they just wanted to be recognized as an official delegation from B.C. when they got there. I was a little disappointed in the Minister's department at the lack of action and the delay on that. It has been very disappointing to the people involved as well.

I want to get the Minister to tell the House about the dealings that his department has had with the land in Prince Rupert — the Heilbroner estate. It was mentioned briefly in the House some time before the rugby break, but I don't think the Minister commented on it at that time.

This is 800 acres, apparently, of prime waterfront land in Prince Rupert which had been quite widely advertised all over North America for sale for $550,000. Subsequent to that, the people who were advertising — it was a Victoria real estate firm, I believe — got an offer from a gentleman named Jim Proctor, for $300,000. They accepted the offer. At that time he made a $1,000 deposit on the 800 acres with an agreement to pay another $50,000 by May 1, and the further $250,000 to formally finish the deal by June 1. He had a signed agreement. There were copies of a telegram which were sent to the real estate company in the Prince Rupert Daily News, in which the vendor did make the $50,000 offer and the $250,000 by June 1, and said he would arrange his own financing. Mr. Proctor says that his deposit was accepted at that time for the purchase of the property at that price.

He planned an industrial site there. I think he had in mind a particle board plant, for one thing, on that site — I don't know what his plans were. I know that Canadian National apparently started a $100,000 feasibility study on that property.

Then Mr. Proctor apparently made his mistake. He came down to Victoria to talk with the officials in the Department of Industrial Development. He told them his whole story of what he planned to do with the property, and he wanted assurance that the government wouldn't take him over or do anything else — tax him out of the position or something like that.

Apparently he got the assurance from the department. They told him they weren't out to take over anybody. They only want to help, was the line that Mr. Proctor was fed. Well, they helped him all right — right out of a deal, as I'm told. About three weeks later, Mr. Chairman, in contact with the Victoria realty firm, Mr. Proctor was told that the deal was off, despite the fact that they had accepted his $1,000 deposit. They said they had a buyer who was prepared to pay more money, so the deal was off.

Who do you think the buyer was? The provincial government, who had said that they would pay the listed $550,000. I don't know what the property is worth — it may be worth $1 million, for all I know.

[ Page 2892 ]

Maybe it's a good deal, but the point is that the government stepped in on this deal and cut this man out of the deal when they said they wouldn't and when they said they weren't interested in taking over.

I suppose the moral of the whole story, Mr. Chairman, is that if you have any private development plans in this province, don't tell them to the Industrial Development department, because they will come and cut you out of your plans. I wonder — is that the pattern that is going to be followed by the Industrial Development department in the future to short-circuit the plans of private entrepreneurs and cut them out of any deals they have going? It seems that's what happened in this instance.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister has no ideas of his own, so he swoops in on the ideas of other people like some kind of a bureaucratic seagull.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, dear!

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if the Industrial Development department is going to be the agent which does the dirty deals for the socialist philosophies of this government, because that is sure what it seems like in this instance.

Just for the edification of the Members of this House, I think that the Minister should tell us what the status is of this 800-acre Heilbroner estate. Has the government bought it, and does it intend to do further deals like this when individual enterprisers are involved?

HON. MR. LAUK: I wonder, before I answer the question, could you tell me who this chap talked to who made the offer in my department?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I can't tell you who he talked to. He says: "I went to Victoria to have a meeting with the provincial government's industrial development branch. I decided to lay all my cards on the table when I met them and explained the whole project." He says he met with the people in your branch.

HON. MR. LAUK: I have no report on that; I don't think it's correct. I'm saying that at this stage, and I'm going to conduct a thorough investigation because I….

MR. McCLELLAND: You had better find out first before you say the guy is lying.

HON. MR. LAUK: I didn't.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, what's the difference?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm familiar with the procedures involved by the Development Corporation.

Do you want to listen to the answer? Good.

I'm familiar with the procedures of the Development Corporation in purchasing land. I really have my doubts whether in this case they acted on that land as a result of a conversation they had with this gentleman. But doubts aside, I will conduct an investigation and make sure that kind of thing doesn't occur or doesn't appear to have occurred.

With respect to the land in question, the Development Corporation has been operating in Prince Rupert. I must emphasize the corporation, through its chief executive officer and his officers, has been operating there, looking for suitable industrial land. There is an option on the 800 acres in question. I'm not sure yet whether the Development Corporation will or will not decide to pick up that option by the end of this month. That's the status of the land.

I understand there was a prior offer, and that's probably the one you're referring to. I understand the price was the same but the terms were different, which is why we competed on the open market through the Development Corporation and we have the option.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, no, that's not my instructions on the two offers; they were the same. There's a conflict of some of the points here, and I'll conduct an investigation and see who the gentleman spoke to. When we advertised earlier that we're on the market for ideas, we didn't want to steal them, particularly from people who gave them to us; we wanted to support them. The idea of getting the land is not for speculative purpose, from our point of view. We want to develop an industrial base there.

MR. McGEER: For a moment or two….

HON. MR. LAUK: Can I answer the question on the band? We don't have many Band-aids in our department. Listen, I think that's terrible that there was such a delay. I don't know who they contacted. I really am upset at that, and I will check that out.

MR. McGEER: The Minister is in a terribly conciliatory mood. I wouldn't have allowed him the time to make that bad joke about Band-aids if I had known. In defence of the Minister, I thought he was very reasonable about this matter of carrying on a little investigation. There wasn't any proof that the idea was stolen. In any event it's established

[ Page 2893 ]

practice of government.

Wenner-Gren came up with an idea. There was the Pacific Northern Railway, I remember the idea private developers had there. You remember the Peace River Development Company that was going to build that dam up on the Peace River; they had an idea too. There was the Black Ball Ferries; they had an idea about transportation. It's not as though the government hasn't done a little seagulling in an industrial way in the past.

I do say this, Mr. Chairman: the most successful thing, in my view, that the former government did was in the area of ferries. They built a first-class successful service.

I was disappointed in the press release we got today. I'd like to take one minute, if I may, to underline something which the Minister of Industrial Development should have been on top of in the ferry situation. The press release itself said the growth of ferry traffic had been constant and predictable. We knew at the time the NDP government took office that ferries would be required.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, your own press release said the growth has been constant and predictable. There were complaints, Mr. Chairman….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, far before the New Democratic Party took office, the Premier had been talking about the necessity of keeping our shipyards going and building ships here in British Columbia. He complained long and loudly about the fact that the federal government subsidy for ferries was no longer 40 per cent. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), as early as January, 1973, pointed out to the government — and they knew it — that the ferry subsidies of 25 per cent were still available.

What we have done in this purchase is to pay the federal government a duty to import this ferry, a duty of nearly $4 million, instead of getting a subsidy of $4 million, which we could have got, plus employment for the workers of British Columbia. We have wound up subsidizing workers in Sweden and paying an import duty of about $4 million to the federal government.

The Premier's loud and long complaints about the lack of assistance from the federal government has boomeranged on him. The Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says: "I don't know a thing about it." But anybody with two eyes could see that our ferry service was becoming more and more overcrowded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that the line he is following would seem to be under the direction of the Minister of Transport and Communications. Will the Hon. Member relate his remarks specifically to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce?

MR. McGEER: This is the point I'm making to the Minister. I'm asking him if he could assure us now that he will see that no more ferries are purchased by the government, that we will be encouraging shipbuilding in British Columbia shipyards, that we will take the full advantages that can accrue to us from the growing ferry traffic. We want to build employment; we want to build a stable, growing industry here; we have a demand for the ferries. To go outside of this country, purchase a ferry at a price that is far too high and have the gall of paying the federal government an import duty instead of receiving a subsidy is a betrayal of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I want the Minister to say that there will be no more betrayal of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey was deliberately misleading this House about the situation that exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw the implication that the Hon. Member was misleading the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I withdraw the word "deliberately."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask him to unconditionally withdraw that he was misleading the House in any way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, he was misinforming the House. How's that? Is that all right? He was misinforming the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think the more appropriate way is to say the information he has is incorrect.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, he had no information at all, as a matter of fact. So I withdraw the statement and I agree 100 per cent with what you said, Mr. Chairman.

The Member was trying to take advantage of a situation which ignored completely the need:

[ Page 2894 ]

(1) to get into office;

(2) to determine the situation;

(3) to determine the ferry requirements;

(4) to design the ferries;

(5) to call for tenders;

(6) to have them constructed.

In the time that has elapsed since we became government, that has been taken up.

That simply ridiculous statement he has just made ignores completely the fact that three tenders have already been let to the shipyards of this province and that the shipyards of this province….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister relate his remarks to the estimates before us?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the same manner that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. The shipyards of this province are already working full out and have been for some time and will be in the foreseeable future, so much so that we even have to schedule the refitting of our ships. So don't try to mislead this House in any way, shape or form.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't try to misinform the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't accuse him of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm certain the Hon. Minister was not suggesting….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, no, no. I just asked him not to try to mislead the House, not to try to misinform the public, about something which either you didn't know a thing about or you hadn't taken the trouble to check on, because that's the situation that exists. I want you to go to the ferry lineups this summer and tell the people who are waiting there that we should not have bought this ferry. I challenge you to do that.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the ferries will be operating if we don't get a more intelligent Minister running them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address his remarks to the Chair and also concerning the estimates before us.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think it a pity that the Minister of Industrial Development didn't think ahead along with his cabinet colleagues. It's all very well for the Minister of Transport to say he had to find out after he got into office. It should have been his first job, the day he took over, to get this thing moving.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! Before the Hon. Member proceeds, before you sat down, I was calling you to order. The point I was going to make was that you persisted in discussing a matter which is under the Minister of Transport and Communications. And you are continuing in this vein. I would ask you to discuss vote 125 that is before us and the responsibilities of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, or else take your seat.

MR. McGEER: You see, Mr. Chairman, you do need to think ahead. The Minister of Industrial Development needs to do that. We had unemployment in October, 1972. We had unemployment in our shipyards. We had designs for ferries. They were sitting in the government offices. A whole bunch of ferries had already been built.

To say that the shipyards were going flat out when the government took office is mischievous. There was unemployment. To say they didn't have designs is irresponsible because they'd already built a whole bunch of them, and they're running now. What did you do, lose the plans or burn them or something? What does he take us for, imbeciles?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I can't wait to debate that Minister's estimates, but….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong the debate and be goaded into this sort of thing by the Minister of Transport.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I just have a very short question, Mr. Chairman, because I spoke in this debate earlier. This is a point I've discussed with the Minister earlier on, and I said it was a question I wanted to ask him. It is a philosophical question that goes to the core of the

[ Page 2895 ]

administration of his department, and it goes to the core of the philosophy of his government.

He has the difficulty of being a Minister of Industrial Development in a government and a party that doesn't really believe in profits and returns to capital. One of the worst words, it seems to me, in the NDP lexicon is "profits" — and particularly "rip-off profits."

The simple question I wanted to ask the Minister is: what is a fair profit, in his view and in the view of his party, and when does a fair profit cross that boundary and become a rip-off profit? These are words that are used very often by members of his party and Members of his government, and I would just like to have clarified to this House what those words mean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 125 pass?

MR. GIBSON: Surely the Minister has some answer to that. I know he has thought about it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know, we often use the words "fair" and "rip-off." I don't think that I particularly use them too often. I say fair and unfair with respect to conduct. It is a matter of normative judgment, I think.

MR. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, shortly after the Minister was appointed he came out with some very, very prophetic statements, most of which have been proven to be incorrect. I think the Hon. Minister would be interested in hearing some of them.

I would be particularly interested in hearing his responses to whether or not he still abides by the tomes he rendered on Saturday, July 7, 1973, reported in The Province, Business Section, in an article by Mr. Art McKenzie. The headline is: "Lauk Unveils Plans to Step up Aid to Industry."

Mr. McKenzie says about 10 things that I would like to refer to, Mr. Chairman.

"Mr. Lauk called on businessmen Friday to be unafraid of the socialists and join them in enhancing social justice in B.C."

I would ask the Minister if he happened to call upon the insurance industry and the mining industry apropos of the statements that he made. It is obvious that he certainly did not. He carries on and says:

"Greater social justice could be achieved only with the support of responsible private entrepreneurs and by entrepreneurial investment to stimulate the economy and enable it to continue to prosper."

I would ask the Hon. Minister which responsible private entrepreneurs he has stimulated the support of, in what manner, what he has really done to seek such support, and whether he has provided any incentives at all.

He then carries on saying that the B.C. government would take a position in the private sector only where a region needs support and never in one already prospering under private business and industry. Only where a region needs support, he says, would the B.C. government take a position.

How does that really support the position taken by the B.C. government dealing with Vancouver Island Coach Lines or Woodbridge or Dun-in-Hill or whatever it is? It is an extremely tiny drop in the bucket to suggest that the Dunhill transaction is anything that could possibly enhance the housing crisis in B.C. I'd suggest that it's a first-class boondoggle. But I would like to hear the Minister's statements on it.

Then he says this:

"We believe in the occupied field theory. Wherever private industry is occupying a field successfully and responsibly it will be left to prosper."

This is not the philosophy of this government at all. The following industries can perform both for the public weal and, if left alone, can certainly do their level best to produce some very, very good provincial and federal tax revenues.

For example, the housing industry: it occupied a field successfully and responsibly. The mining industry was doing exactly that. So was the insurance industry, and so was the forest industry. These people were all contributing….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. GARDOM: We are hearing large "noes" from the other side of the House, I would tend to think that we would have had the largest no of all from the Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), Mr. Chairman. If one happens to believe in balloons that are flown and the ones that he is flying for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), we can certainly expect the same kind of oppressive and takeover actions that we have experienced in the insurance industry and the mining industry with the forestry industry.

The Hon. Minister carries on with this statement with reference to his department:

"They will go into the field to see what is needed, rather than wait for business to come to the department with problems."

I would like the Minister to name one field, one pasture or even a single solitary plot where he has done this particular thing. We certainly are not talking about his walking up and down the aisle of a Japan Air jet when we are dealing with that.

He carries on to say that the department will

[ Page 2896 ]

increase its promotional activity. He explained that he meant by this that the department specialists will encourage existing industry to expand and develop and add value in terms of secondary expansion of their activities.

Well, where, indeed, is this increased promotional activity in B.C.? Where is this secondary expansion of activities? Where are the secondary industries which he feels he could inform us of tonight that his department and himself have been directly and positively responsible for? It seems that about the greatest activity in the department has been the degree of horizontal promotion.

He carries on. He says that in the past the department was "mainly a statistics gathering operation." Well, he has said that over and over and over again. Today it is not even that. He cannot even furnish us with an annual report. I think that that is really in itself a disgraceful thing. I am sure that his estimates would have been a great deal shorter if he had furnished that annual report. Even his predecessors in the former government were able to do that.

The Attorney-General was able to do that, having another and heavier portfolio and also dealing with a very, very heavy burden of legislation. But you have not even been able to do that. There are no reasons why. "A great little Minister, " says the Attorney-General; a great little Minister. Well, it's been little, all right: little action, mini-department and a mini-Minister. The Attorney-General applauds that. Indeed he does.

Now here is a gem. Listen to this one.

" 'The day of the trade mission is practically over,' he said. 'They were mostly junkets at the taxpayers' expense that did not achieve a defined goal, except to familiarize some foreign businessmen with the night life of downtown Vancouver or, vice versa, of Düsseldorf."

Or, vice versa, of uptown, midtown or downtown Tokyo. The Ginza. Gary at the Ginza, looking for markets to conquer. Yessiree!

"The Minister said he was not criticizing all trade missions. Some opened doors and resulted in a valuable exchange of ideas, but the taxpayers' money might be better spent in directly subsidizing a manufacturer to send his own men abroad."

You're darn tooting; that's certainly what happened there.

Next quotation.

"Lauk says the B.C. Development Corporation should be in operation near the end of July, 1973."

A long time ago, Mr. Minister. Well, I don't really know what it has done yet but, to volunteer some hopeful pronouncement this afternoon, I heard you saying that loans were soon to be announced, presumably after your estimates, just like your annual report. That will come in after your estimates too. The same kind of thing; nothing put into it at all.

Next quotation:

"Our philosophy is that we should cooperate and encourage private enterprise where possible. It is only where a region has been deserted by private enterprise that we will come in and take over" — once again the rather ominous words to support that region."

In what manner have you been cooperating and encouraging specifically private enterprise? In housing, you have been mucking that up. You have been mucking up mining; you have certainly been mucking up the forest industry. You grind those other industries down. Some of them and no end of them are closing out. There are a lot of people in B.C. who are daily becoming more dispirited with socialistic policies. I certainly do hope that, come the federal assessment that will have to be reached by all Canadians — for God's sake, whatever they do, please vote Liberal or please vote Conservative, but avoid the NDP like the devil does the holy water. Let B.C. be the experiment for that.

Where are these deserted regions that you are talking of on July 7, 1973? Where are those desert lands that you have purportedly cameled in to support? Lawrence of Moravia to the rescue, I suppose. That seems to be what you say. But where has all the spirited action taken place? It seems the thing that has most needed support since this debate has started is not really the private sector; it is the Hon. Minister — "the little Minister," again to quote the Hon. Attorney-General. It is this Minister who should do the job where he is, but where he is, the job isn't. And it seems that he and the job have never yet met.

It seems to be pretty evident from what one hears throughout the halls and in this chamber that the Hon. Minister is begging for a change of portfolio. I think perhaps it would be in the interests of his portfolio and in the interests of the general public of B.C. that he insist upon it or maybe even better, that the portfolio per se be disbanded. In my view, it is totally inconsistent and in conflict with the policies of a socialistic government.

We have here a statistic and a control-istic philosophy of government. And it is no surprise. You socialists, you have announced that fact and said it over and over again. It is rather regretful to find that the private sector is so slow to appreciate that fact. The government is no champion for private enterprise or for private entrepreneurs or for private business or even for free, competitive

[ Page 2897 ]

endeavours of any kind but for state business and state control.

Mr. Minister, you came up with quite some statements on July 7, 1973. They were the kinds of statements that one would really not expect to hear from a socialist. Maybe you have been misquoted. I would tend to think that you haven't. But whether you have or you have not, Mr. Minister, what you have said and what you have done are just poles apart. There hasn't been any action; there haven't been any effective measures taken by you or your department. We don't have a report; you don't have anything specific to inform this Legislature. I, for one, shall be voting against your vote.

Vote 125 approved.

Vote 126: general administration, $237,380 — approved.

Vote 127: promotion and development of industry and markets, $1,664,035 — approved.

On vote 128: shared programmes and grants, $2,355,000.

MR. CHABOT: Vote 128 deals with grants to the B.C. Research Council. I have the 29th annual report available from the B.C. Research Council, of 1972. The report basically outlines the B.C. Research Council. Maybe I should remind the Minister of its role. It says:

"The B.C. Research Council is the technical operation of a non-profit, independent society. It conducts research, development and other technical work under contract to sponsors in both industry and government, and offers services in the fields of applied biology, applied chemistry, applied physics, engineering, economics, market research, operations research, industrial engineering, management training and technical information."

That outlines very clearly what it does.

Its source of revenue comes from varied areas. Its revenue in the year of 1972 came 28.8 per cent from the provincial and municipal governments. I think the services of the B.C. Research Council were utilized by a great variety of government departments and also by a great number of municipal governments and agencies as well; that is, regional districts, various cities, port authorities, school boards and so forth. They have all participated in that 28.8 per cent of the income of the B.C. Research Council. Foreign governments contributed 3.6 per cent of their income. Industry contributed 42 per cent of their income, and the federal government, in fact, contributed as much as the provincial government, if you are able to separate the kind of revenue generated by the municipal governments from that of the provincial government.

On the board of management we find the B.C. Research Council has five government appointees, five watchdogs, watching the $320,000 that has been allocated on an annual basis since the middle '60s. There is nothing wrong with giving a grant to the B.C. Research Council, this free and independent agency that does research to a substantially greater degree for private industry than it does for the provincial government.

But lo and behold, we find the Minister has some ideas of moving in on the B.C. Research Council and Tech West. I wish the Minister would explain once and for all to the House the memorandum which was tabled in the House, addressed to the Premier from the Minister of Industrial Development. I got it from the Clerk's office; it was tabled in the House. "As you know, in my budget there is a certain amount of money…."

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for South Peace River tabled it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let her walk across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

"As you know, in my budget there is a certain amount of money by way of grant to the British Columbia Research Council."

Yes, $320,000. It has been there since the middle '60s.

"This council is a research and development organization with several sections concerned with many disciplines. For example, water pollution, marketability of new products, various engineering groups, chemistry groups, physics groups and so forth. Among our projects is an ocean engineering centre, for which they are now requesting an exceptional grant of $500,000 from the provincial government."

I presume the Minister by the word "exceptional" means a one-time grant to the B.C. Research Council.

[ Page 2898 ]

"For the purpose of reporting intelligently to cabinet, I have ordered an assessment for the 'Centre for Advanced Ocean Engineering' by Dr. Douglas S. Beder. My departmental economist, Mr. Jack R. Meredith, reviewed the report and in essence supports the proposed expansion.

"It occurs to me, however, that other provincial governments support their research groups with vast amounts of money — for example, in Alberta, up to $6 million — and that we only give a small grant of $320,000 per year. For that reason, British Columbia Research Council has been heavily utilized by private industry."

And what's wrong with private industry using a free and independent agency? Is there anything wrong with that?

HON. MR. LAUK: Nothing is wrong.

MR. CHABOT: You are suggesting there is.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm suggesting there isn't.

MR. CHABOT: You're suggesting that in your letter to the Premier. Absolutely!

HON. MR. LAUK: You stop pilfering my mail. I didn't suggest that. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, would you have that Member withdraw that statement, because at no time did I pilfer his mail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is offended by that remark, I would ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mail that. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: This document was given to me by an unknown person; handed to me in my office.

HON. MR. LAUK: Unknown! Did you have your hand over your eyes?

MR. CHABOT:

"The council further has set up a company known as Tech West which can actually profit by the sale of newly developed technology and research and information. This may be fine for council's point of view with respect to profitability but makes me a little nervous."

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Is that a nervous department you have over there, Mr. Minister? Tell us what you are nervous about.

"I request permission from the Hon. Dave to negotiate with British Columbia Research Council with respect to the $500,000 grant with respect to the ocean engineering centre with a view to taking a piece of Tech West and sharing in whatever profit may be forthcoming. I would like this permission immediately, as the construction of the centre is proceeding and some indication of financing, I am told, should be forthcoming before the end of February."

Now, the Minister wants a piece of the action. Now when the Minister sees a free and independent agency functioning well, he wants to apply his socialist philosophy: take it over; twist their arms; force them into giving a piece of the action to the socialist government.

Will the Minister tell me whether he has taken a piece of action with his cohorts, the B.C. Research Council, in order to give them a piece of Tech West? Now, the B.C. Research Council is functioning well. Will the Minister let it function without interference?

HON. MR. LAUK: The $320,000 is unchanged, at the request of the B.C. Research Council itself.

Vote 128 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I beg leave to present the second report of the Special Committee on Selection.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the report be read and received. I have discussed this with party leaders and have their consent.

DEPUTY CLERK:

"Report No. 2, Legislative committee room, May 7, 1974.

"Mr. Speaker:

"Your special committee appointed January 31 to prepare a report list of

[ Page 2899 ]

Members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House at the present session begs leave to submit its second report and to recommend that the personnel of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, as constituted by virtue of its first report of February 18, be varied as follows: Mr. Chabot substituted for Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Wallace added as a member thereof.

"Respectfully submitted, Alex Macdonald, Chairman."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Leave granted.

Hon. R.A. Williams files the annual report of the British Columbia Forest Service for 1973.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise Members that after a gruelling day in the House you are invited to a wine and cheese party at the Empress Hotel, Duke of Kent Room, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. There's a senior citizens' conference going on, and wines will be served courtesy of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.