[ Page 1233 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 34.

Mr. Gibson — 1233

Mr. Phillips — 1234

Mr. Gardom — 1240

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1243

Mr. Gardom — 1245

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1246

Mr. Chabot — 1247

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1249

Mr. Fraser — 1249

Mr. Wallace — 1252

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1253

Mr. Gibson — 1254

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1254

Mr. Chabot — 1254

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1255

Mr. Chabot — 1255

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1255

Mr. Chabot — 1255

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 34: Minister's office, $85,129.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, just before the dinner adjournment I had occasion to ask the Minister some questions — three simple questions, as I put it. I think he perhaps didn't write them down completely, because the replies just didn't cover the ground.

The first question that was asked was: in view of his pride in the performance of the British Columbia economy at the moment, how does he explain the fact that 100,000-plus British Columbians are out of work? It's a very simple question, Mr. Chairman — a very simple question. These aren't seasonally adjusted figures. We had some dialogue on seasonal adjustment the other day. These are just British Columbians out of work. The Minister hasn't tackled that question, and I invite him to do so, and he'll say something about world markets for resource products.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: He may say that, but I admire his suit. I wouldn't tackle the Minister on that kind of basis. He's an elegant Minister, Mr. Member, from an elegant riding in downtown Vancouver. And his running mate from that same great riding (Mr. Barnes) is equally well known, Mr. Chairman, for his elegance — especially tonight. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GIBSON: So there's question No. 1.

Now question No. 2 was related to investment in the mining industry. I think perhaps this Minister doesn't understand the numbers quite as clearly as he might.

I have some sympathy for this Minister, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that on the government benches he wishes to bring jobs to British Columbia, and I believe he is not quite as taken as some of his colleagues with the idea that jobs grow out of the government coffers. I think he has some good perception of the role of individual initiative as an engine to our economy and as a way of giving people employment. But he's virtually alone, and the things he's doing, the things he's mentioned to us earlier on today — good things, trade commission, brochures and pamphlets, I have no doubt, distributed in most of the financial capitals of the world — are being undermined (I use the word "undermined" advisedly) by some of his colleagues. There's no mining left. How can you undermine a non-existent mine? They're high-grading, and the government's undermining.

Investment in the development of mines. I want to qualify what that is. The development of mines is the bringing of the property from the stage where it is known to exist to the stage where it is known to be economic. It's an indispensable step. After the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Nimsick's) prospect or-assisted people have gone out and scratched the rock and found an occurrence of ore somewhere, that's a prospect. It's not yet ore; it doesn't become ore until it's developed. That's an indispensable step between a prospect and an operating mine.

Development expenditures in the Province of British Columbia, according to the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, in the last two years have declined by over 98 per cent. I'd invite the Minister to address himself to that figure, to a drop of 98 per cent in development expenditures on mining in British Columbia, which is our No. 2 industry — our industry that in the end is at the bottom 20 to 25 per cent of the wages paid in this province. There's a 98 per cent drop in development expenditure.

Then the third section of the question related to forestry, our largest industry. According to figures quoted here earlier on this afternoon in debate, over the next three years we might anticipate something like $168 million worth of investment in our forest industry as compared to $1.3 billion in Quebec and Ontario, when we have here an equal amount of softwood as they have in those two great provinces in central Canada. How can you explain that, Mr. Chairman? You can't explain it the way the Minister does by saying it's a question of corporate planning and decision-making. Surely that Minister has some conception of the fact that corporate planning is done in a political climate. If those doing the planning can't have some feeling of security about their investment, then their plans may be adjusted. I invite that Minister to ask himself how he would look at the following analogy:

Let us imagine that this Legislature set up a restaurant. Let's call it Gary's Place. Let's say that members of the public were coming day after day to Gary's Place.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what — doughnuts?

MR. GIBSON: To listen to the entertainment —

[ Page 1234 ]

and the food's not bad. Let's imagine that the management has a new policy: every second customer coming in the door will be hit over the head. Then the customers stop coming. Then one day management — Gary — says: "I wonder why. It's a conspiracy on the part of the customers. They're trying to force us out of business." (Laughter.)

That's what they're doing to the mining industry of British Columbia. Those big bad companies are trying to force us out of business because we're hitting them over the head. What a surprise!

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'd say that for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Are you going to use it on my portfolio too, for crying out loud?

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Health asked if I'd use that on his portfolio. No, I wouldn't do that, because I don't think he knows even as much about mines as the Minister of Economic Development.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: There's the Minister of Defence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): He's talking about the health of the mining industry.

MR. GIBSON: Talking about the health of the mining industry.

So there are some simple facts. Mining development investment is down 98 per cent. There are 100,000 people unemployed in British Columbia. Investment in the British Columbia forest industry budgeted over the next three years is around 15 per cent that of the equally great softwood reserves in the two central provinces of this country. Those are three questions I'd ask the Minister...if he'll be good enough to enlighten us as to how this can be made commensurate with an adequate performance in his department.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I had the opportunity during the afternoon debate to ask the Minister of Economic Development a few simple questions about his policy regarding economic development in the Province of British Columbia. What did I get in answer, Mr. Chairman? I got a bunch of personal abuse. That was the answer to the questions I asked about the policy of this government in setting out the economic future of the province — personal abuse, and a few words about some trade missions to Japan, a few trade missions here and there to sell the products of the industry that we presently have.

We're sick and tired, in the opposition, of listening to that do-nothing Minister. I want to reiterate that he's done absolutely nothing since he became Minister. Absolutely nothing!

Not only is he a do-nothing Minister; he's the say-nothing Minister. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Only in this case it's hear no economic development, see no economic development, and speak no policy about economic development.

Now the Minister said this afternoon that when he and the Premier went to Japan to talk about his steel industry.... The Premier wanted to play volleyball or something, and he went along to carry his bags.

He said that when they got to Japan they spoke to the Japanese steel industry about the feasibility of a steel mill for British Columbia. I want to tell you, about six months before he went to Japan, in the fall of 1973, our Minister of Economic Development said: "Oh, we're going to have a steel mill in British Columbia," Yet when he got to Japan, he asked about the feasibility of a steel mill. He wanted to know if it was feasible.

I want to tell you, that's quite a picture. It shows the Minister in front of a blast furnace. I'd like to quote from this magazine. There are the Minister's quotes about a steel industry.

I want to remind you once again that this was approximately six months before he asked the Japanese steel industry if a steel mill for British Columbia was feasible. But before that, before asking the Japanese steel industry, he had all the answers.

He says that we are going to build a steel mill before they leave office.

" 'I hope to see a fully integrated blast furnace mill producing 1.5 million tons of raw steel annually in ingot form for export and domestic markets,' Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, Gary V. Lauk, said."

How, Mr. Chairman, can we have any faith in a Minister who has all the answers six months before he asks the questions? Six months before he asks the questions he has all the answers. There's another interesting quote here. He says: "I curse the eastern financials before I go to bed every night."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: If he had gone on to say what he really thought, he would have said: "I curse anybody who brings money into British Columbia to develop jobs, and I'm going to put the run on them."

"I curse the eastern financial institutions."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 1235 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, here is a man who now supposedly has his arms wide open inviting risk capital into British Columbia. You know, it's like the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) just said.

HON. MR. COCKE: You and he were twins.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, "I curse them and I hate them and I'll do everything to keep them out, but I welcome them."

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope they get into bed with me.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want them to get into bed with me. Mr. Chairman, I have to doubt....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to doubt not the integrity but the intelligence of the Minister.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Well, that's not nice.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to doubt the intelligence. I think the Minister thinks he's back in the courtroom, where whether he wins the case or he loses the case he still gets paid.

MR. GIBSON: You've-gone too far. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to inform the Minister....

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I don't lose cases; my clients do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: His clients? They lose the case and they lose their money as well. You know, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister of Economic Development thinks he's in the courtroom and that somebody else is going to make the decision, because he hasn't made any decisions. He's waiting for some judge up somewhere to direct the jury.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): All he has to do is yak.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he has to make the decisions now. He goes on to say: "How can we repair the wrong of not diverting investment into Canada and into industrial loans? I firmly believe we haven't made our financial decision to become a country yet."

HON. MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, here is a man whose Minister of Finance is not satisfied to allow Canadians to invest in British Columbia. He has to go elsewhere for money because he doesn't want to give British Columbians a chance to invest in their own province. Here's a Minister of Industrial Development who condemned — what did he say, again? — curses the eastern financial institutions. He doesn't want them to invest in British Columbia. Will he be going overseas? Will he be going to the OPEC countries for money? Will he be going to them with his arms open to invest in the industry and economic climate of British Columbia?

I thought that we were all Canadians. I thought that he wanted Canadians to invest in British Columbia. He and his government condemn the rip-off artists supposedly in the United States. He doesn't like them. But he goes down there and borrows money. Mr. Chairman, I doubt sometimes if this Minister of Economic Development is suited for the tremendous responsibility he carries in this province.

The Minister says, and I'd like to make another quote which his Premier, his Minister of Finance, has proven him wrong on already: "The basis of the 20th century industrial state is steel. Energy is a very distant second."

Energy is a very distant second! Now what do we find today, Mr. Chairman? What is the most important commodity in the world today?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not steel.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is it steel?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course not.

MR. PHILLIPS: Proven wrong again! No, it's energy. It's energy. Now I certainly would have hoped that in the two years the Minister has had his portfolio — two and a half years — that he would have learned something.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's two years old.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister's right on. Sure, it's two years old and I'm merely saying.... I'm merely pointing these facts out to say, Mr. Chairman, that I hope in those two years the Minister has learned something. But I doubt it very much, because again I say that this Minister has done absolutely nothing with his portfolio.

You know, I don't agree with what the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has done with his portfolio, but at least he's made some decisions. He made the decision to kill the mining industry.

[ Page 1236 ]

MR. CHABOT: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't agree with it, but at least he's had the intestinal fortitude to make a decision as to what he's going to do with the mining industry.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; I don't agree with his policy, but at least he's made a decision. The Minister in charge of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. has made a decision — to take over the petroleum industry and to build a refinery. But that Minister hasn't made a decision since he became a Minister...

MR. CHABOT: He's done a lot of yakking, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and he hasn't delineated one clear policy that the taxpayers of British Columbia can look at and say: "This is where we're going."

I'd like to ask the Minister again: what is his policy? We've heard a lot of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member that in Committee of Supply the main thing is to question the Minister on his administrative responsibilities rather than to get into a discussion of policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I'll ask him what his plans are then — what he feels his administrative responsibilities are. Is he getting paid to kill industry in British Columbia, or is he getting paid to encourage economic development and to provide guidelines for the other Ministers?

Now the Minister of Economic Development is telling me how much industry is coming to British Columbia and how his Development Corp. of British Columbia has aided industry and done such a great job. Mr. Chairman, there is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), and she's trying to educate the youth of this province so that they can go out and earn gainful livings so they won't have to be on social welfare, so they won't have to be unemployed. She's trying her best to educate these people. She's trying to educate the growing population in British Columbia with night schools, educate those unemployed to take their places in new jobs. But what's the Minister of Economic Development doing? He's driving industry out of the province. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is saying: "Go to Alberta. Go to Manitoba."

But the Minister of Education knows full well what is happening in British Columbia — she knows full well — because in a press release issued on February 26, 1975, what does the Minister of Education have to say about the economic climate in British Columbia? She knows that it's not as rosy as the Minister of Economic Development would lead you to believe. She realizes that 103,000 on unemployment is not to be scoffed at. She realizes that without growth in industry and without taxes coming in she can't spend more on education, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) can't spend more on health, that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) can't spend more on social welfare. Those Ministers realize because they spend money. They know that before they can spend it, it has to come in. You have to have a tax base to work on. But the Minister of Economic Development hasn't recognized that fact, Mr. Chairman.

What does the Minister of Education say about the economic climate in British Columbia? She says:

" 'The government's commitment to reduce the pupil teacher ratio in the province to 17 to one was made in good faith and this programme will be continued when economic conditions improve,' " — when economic conditions improve — "Education Minister Eileen Dailly told delegates from the teachers' organization in Victoria today."

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Today?

MR. CHABOT: She says things are bad.

MR. PHILLIPS:

" 'However, it is neither reasonable nor rational to expect a continuation of the programme when rampant inflation is coupled with the worst recession in years,' she said."

The Minister of Education recognizes the economic climate in British Columbia today. She has more intelligence about the economic climate and about what is happening to the tax base than the Minister of Economic Development. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Education go and have a talk with the Minister of Economic Development because he doesn't realize what's going on in British Columbia today.

MR. CHABOT: Straighten him out.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister still has no policy. He's hanging his hat on the decline of the economic conditions in the United States of America. He's hanging his hat on a world recession. He doesn't seem to realize that jobs are going wasting because of the economic policies of the Minister of Mines. He doesn't seem to realize that jobs are going wasting because of the policies of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He doesn't seem to be able to grasp the fact that what is happening today and what we see in unemployment today is just the very tip of the iceberg. Unless he changes his policies, unless he does some forward planning, unless he talks to the

[ Page 1237 ]

Ministers of Mines, unless he talks to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, unless he does some forward planning and changes the economic climate in British Columbia and invites that risk capital in, of which we haven't seen anything yet....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would caution the Hon. Member. I think we have allowed considerable latitude, but I would ask him to relate his remarks and what he is reading directly to the responsibilities of this Minister. Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Had we left the title of his particular department as Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, industrial development might not include mining. But now that Minister is the nerve centre of the cabinet, supposedly, because economic development includes the economy of mining. Mr. Chairman, would you not consider that mining has a lot to do with the economic development of the province?

I would just like to continue for a moment. A year ago, when Bill 31 was introduced, mining companies predicted that exploration in British Columbia would decline, although mines would continue to operate because of the enormous investment in place. However, low world metal prices, principally for copper, and rising costs of all kinds, combined with provincial royalties which are applied without regard to earnings, have changed the picture drastically. Operating mines are cutting back and in a few cases closing. The latest development in this situation is reflected in the annual report of Granduc Mines. This company, which owns a copper mine in Stewart, lost $101,000 in 1974 against earnings of $757,000 in 1973.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this Member's record is now complete. He has managed to be off every estimate that we have been on. He is dealing with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources' estimates and he is supposed to be dealing with the Minister of Economic Development. I would ask that he be brought back to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano on the same point of order.

MR. GIBSON: On the same point of order, I would suggest that the question here is one of the investment climate in British Columbia, which is clearly one related to the development of jobs and as such falls squarely within the purview of this Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the Chair would rule that it is permissible to discuss the other departments relating to the general concept of economic development, but I would rule that he should not get into the details and particulars. Rather, these should be addressed to the appropriate Minister. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a question, Mr. Chairman, by way of clarification: would you consider unemployment in British Columbia to come under the Department of Economic Development? Can the unemployment figures be discussed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair rules that the Hon. Member may refer to any department or any activity related to economic development providing that it relates directly to the administrative responsibilities of this particular Minister. However, the Hon. Member should not get into the details of other departments, but rather wait until those Ministers are up with their estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, had the Minister of Health not gotten jumpy and jumped the gun, I would have related my remarks directly to economic development. What I would like to point out to the Minister of Health is that people who are unemployed and people who are not gainfully employed become ill...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and have to enter a private hospital. Now he knows that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue? I had a false alarm from the lights at the back. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know how that light can possibly be on, because we didn't start until....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is there a plot against me here this evening, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. There is no plot. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is a very short message: what I was trying to point out is the degree of unemployment that is presently existing in the mining industry. For instance, in late 1974 and early 1975, Granduc announced it would cut back at the expense of 545 jobs. Similkameen Mining Co. at

[ Page 1238 ]

Princeton cut back 60 jobs. Gibraltar Mines at McLeese Lake reduced its work force by 60 men. Lornex Mining in Highland Valley cut back 100 jobs. Western Mines at Buttle Lake cut back by 75 jobs. Since then Churchill Copper Mines at Fort Nelson, with 115 employees, is closed.

I'm only relating these figures to point out that we must have an economic policy clearly delineated by the Minister of Economic Development. If we don't have a game plan laid out by that Minister, if he won't tell how he feels and where his government is going and how they feel about that investment capital that he cursed every night before he went to bed, if we don't have some idea of whether he is going to welcome this or not, we're going to have not 103,000 unemployed in the province but several times that amount. This is what concerns me.

The Minister of Economic Development can go out and he can build steel mills, copper smelters and a big oil refinery which won't provide one more job than if it were built or the present refineries were allowed to expand, which he seems to be against, or if private companies were allowed to go ahead. Not one more job will be created because the government is involved and because the government can overrule and because the government can buy land. The government can say the devil with the pollution people strictly because the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) want to go on an ego trip. They want to slap those multinational corporations. That's the only reason we are going into an oil refinery.

Surely to goodness, the Minister of Economic Development can see that the same experiment that they tried in Great Britain just hasn't worked. The once great nation today is in the grips of economic disparity. (Laughter.) Here our Minister of Economic Development is trying to go on the same road.

As was pointed out just a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Economic Development really wants investment capital in British Columbia he would talk with his cabinet mates and he would change the economic climate. We can say that the reason the mining industry is in the doldrums in British Columbia is because of the world prices for minerals. But, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that's right, that's right. And I believe that some of the NDP back bench believe that's right. If that is the case, why is mining in the Yukon experiencing one of the greatest booms since the gold rush of 1898 ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come!

MR. PHILLIPS: "Oh, come," he says. No, they don't want to believe the economic facts of life, Mr. Chairman. They just don't want to believe the economic facts of life. Blame it onto somebody else.

I'll tell you, the Yukon is farther away than British Columbia is from Vancouver. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: How much farther?

MR. PHILLIPS: I mean the mining activity in the Yukon is farther away than it is in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much copper are they producing?

MR. PHILLIPS: How much copper are they producing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll give you a few facts.

HON. MR. LAUK: How much are we producing?

MR. PHILLIPS: While the past year has been a most discouraging one for mining in British Columbia, the Yukon territory continues to progress. Dollars spent on exploration in the territory are estimated to be, in 1974, $11.9 million as compared to $7.2 million in 1973, and $4 million in 1972. This is an increase of 197 per cent during the past two years. At the same time the figures relating to claim staking for the first nine months in the Yukon show a similar increase in activity as follows: 1974 — 12,454 claims....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think at this point I should just draw the attention of the Hon. Member to what the duties are as they apply to this Minister.

First of all, standing order 61(2) says....

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you like me to sit down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Speeches in the Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

The Department of Economic Development Act, section 4(1) says:

"The duties, powers and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters relating to economic development of the province that are not, by law, assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of the province."

I think it is quite clear from this that while the Hon. Member may refer to these matters, he's clearly beginning to discuss the details of them. These really should be addressed to other Ministers whose responsibilities they are.

[ Page 1239 ]

Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly. If I was straying away, I was merely trying to answer a question raised by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who seemed very interested in the health of the mining industry. I was merely trying to answer his question. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, because I certainly wouldn't want to abuse the rules of the Chair.

But anyway, we have the mining industry in the doldrums. We have the forest industry with no plans to expand. And the poor British Columbia Railway is in the worst state that it has ever been under this government. The morale is the lowest it's ever been Why, Mr. Chairman? Because of political interference — because of political interference.

This afternoon the Minister of Economic Development referred to the new railway car plant. He was saying how....

HON. MR. LAUK: I did?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. You don't remember?

HON. MR. LAUK: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you about that new railway car plant. This also bothers me about the planning ability of this government because the railway plant that was supposed to open in 1974 was supposed to have cost $5 million. When it opened this year it cost $8 million. That's an increase of 60 per cent.

MR. CHABOT: Eighteen months later.

MR. PHILLIPS: Eighteen months.

MR. CHABOT: Delay.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not only did it not open until 12 months from the time the announcement was made by the president of the railway.... So not only can this Minister not do his job as Minister of Economic Development, but he's taking over a mess that the previous directors of the railway have created. So he's not going to be able to devote much time now to the Economic Development department.

But all of this is his problem. What I would like to ask the Minister again — and I'd like an answer; never mind the personal abuse, which I can take, because I'm not concerned for myself....

HON. MR. LAUK: You're a big fellow, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm concerned about those young people today. Where are they going to go for jobs? Would you explain to me what the policy of the Economic Development department is with regard to the resource industries in this province? Would you tell me what your policy is with regard to developing manufacturing industries in the province? Would you tell me what your policy is with regard to bringing in the new industries of the future? Do you want them? Are you going to encourage them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point has been made previously by myself and other Chairmen that the Hon. Member should not really question the Minister in terms of policies or future policies but rather on the present administrative responsibilities and actions of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know really whether you'd call this a policy or not. If he'd just tell us what his philosophy is — what he's going to do about it.... Is he going to encourage it or is he going to discourage it?

HON. MR. COCKE: His philosophy is anti-Socred.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because with unemployment in British Columbia on the incline, with the amount of investment money coming into the province on the decline, the Minister hasn't signed any DREE agreements. He has nothing planned for the future. His Ministers — his other Ministers in the cabinet — are killing industry. What does he plan on doing? Because, as has been previously said this evening, I believe the Minister honestly would like to have a go-ahead policy and create the much-needed jobs in British Columbia, but he's being hamstrung at every turn of the wheel by his cabinet colleagues and by the philosophies of the Minister of Finance.

I'd like to ask the Minister once again just to tell us something about his department and where it's going, because we haven't heard one solid word since the Minister's estimates opened. He hasn't told us what he's done. I'd like the Minister to tell us. If he doesn't want to tell us what he's going to do in the future, would he tell us what he's done in the past? Just tell us how much jobs he has created, how many new industries he has brought into the Province of British Columbia.

We'll give him 30 minutes to tell us what he has done. I'll venture to say that the Minister will get up and it won't take him very long because he hasn't done anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got 28 minutes left.

MR. PHILLIPS: If he's proud of his department...

MR. CHABOT: Twenty-nine. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1240 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and if he's created jobs and he has brought in new industry and all of the great policies that he has alluded to but hasn't really talked about this afternoon and yesterday, let him tell us exactly what he's done. Now I'll sit down and listen with a keen ear and if I've been wrong, I'll get up and say I was wrong. But let him tell us how many jobs he has created in the province, how many new industries he has brought into the province. We'll even accept the ones that are pending if he doesn't want to say that they're here already. We'll accept the ones that are pending, that deals have been made on. Let him tell us what he's done, just exactly what he has done, because he's talking about trade missions and spending money and helping industries. Let him stand here this evening in this Legislature — in this committee — and tell us what he has done to warrant the expenditure of $5 million last year and another approximately $5 million this year. Let him tell us what he has done to earn his salary. Let him tell us what the people in his department have done to earn their salaries. Let him tell us here this evening so that we can go out and tell the taxpayers of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Ohhh!

MR. PHILLIPS: He's got nothing to say.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I rather think that the former Member has been somewhat unfair to the Minister in posing the questions that he has to him because it's impossible for this Minister with this portfolio, fettered as he is, to give you the answers you wish to have. I think you have to accept that as a basic premise. You can repeat those questions many, many times over but you aren't going to get the answers you'd like to have.

However, when this Hon. Minister was in his salad days, he came out with some very, very interesting statements — the days when he had a little more foliage on top and I think perhaps a little better gray matter and direction underneath. I liked many of the things he stated, and I'm referring to some of his statements that were reported way back on July 7, 1973, in his first major policy speech since he was appointed provincial Minister of industry eight weeks earlier. It was an eight-week incubation period and eventually a little chick popped through and we had a few statements.

He called upon businessmen to be unafraid of the socialists and join them in enhancing social justice in B.C. Will any businessman in this House tonight who's not afraid of the socialists please raise his hand? I'm looking around at the galleries, Mr. Chairman, and I don't see a single raised hand — as a matter of fact, I don't really see an entirely encompassing gallery tonight.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): They heard you were speaking.

MR. GARDOM: That might have been the situation, my friend the Minister of Labour.

But Lauk carried on and he said that greater social justice could be achieved only with the support of responsible private entrepreneurs and by entrepreneur investment to stimulate the economy and enable it to continue to prosper.

Now there's nothing wrong with that statement. That's a correct statement, but the difference between the statement and the actions unfortunately appears to be the difference between day and night. The 32-year-old cabinet Minister, as he then was, said 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. Well, wouldn't that be a marvelous statement tonight to read to the mining industry, and wouldn't that be a marvelous statement tonight to read to the former insurance industry that we had in this province?

And he said this: "We believe in the occupied-field theory." I'll say they do. (Laughter.) Whew! Sometimes when you read these over twice, you know, you see more significance to them. "We believe in the occupied-field theory."

MR. CHABOT: That's an old statement. That's not applicable any more.

MR. GARDOM: Watson, many see but few perceive. You will recall that.

"We believe in the occupied-field theory. Wherever private enterprise is occupying a field successfully and responsibly, it will be left to prosper." That's what the 32-year-old Minister said, as he then was. And that was a great statement and everyone would agree with it. What has happened to Dr. Jekyll? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: As my friend says, that statement is inoperative now.

And he carried on. Listen to this: "The day (he said) of the trade mission is practically over. They were mostly junkets at the taxpayers' expense that did not achieve a defined goal except to familiarize some foreign businessmen with the nightlife of downtown Dusseldorf." (Laughter.)

Now let's see who's not here tonight'; He's in Sweden. He's in Ottawa. Where's he tonight? He's in Ottawa. Has she gone anywhere tonight? Eh? What is happening with these junkets?

You know, the Minister carried on. Listen to what

[ Page 1241 ]

he said. The Minister said he was not criticizing all trade missions. Some opened doors and resulted in valuable exchange of ideas, but the taxpayers' money might be better spent in directly subsidizing a manufacturer to send his own men a broad ... abroad. Sometimes these Province editorials are difficult to read, you know. (Laughter.) And, he said, "our philosophy" — in answer to your question, my friend — "our philosophy" — two years ago he could spell the word — "is that we should cooperate and encourage private enterprise." Shame on you! Did you really say that? "Our philosophy is that we should cooperate and encourage private enterprise."

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the rest.

MR. GARDOM: Really, the Members of the New Democratic Party tonight should call a division on that statement alone. Where possible, he says, where possible, It's only where a region has been deserted by private enterprise that we will come in and take over to support that region. Well, of course, you closed the doors of the insurance industry by saying it is illegal for them to continue to operate and compete. In a democratic society, it's illegal to become involved in the insurance business, and you effectively closed the doors of the mining industry — as no end of Members have discussed — by virtue of your policies.

A lot of the Members, I think, have been rather uncomplimentary to the Hon. Minister. Be their plea either truth or fiction, I think really their unkindness was quite unnecessary because this portfolio, in this province, — I say very unfortunately, but historically — has been a complete loss leader. It's been sort of a runt portfolio with expertise.

It doesn't matter how well-motivated the expertise may be or even individually equipped. It has been severely restricted and it's been severely limited in its scope and in its performance, I think, with the net result that any Minister who has been responsible for the administration of a portfolio as this is, responsible for its progress, has always been the very unfortunate recipient of a bunch of very ill-conceived humour.

Its administrative responsibility is essentially anything that could be attended to by any clerk I. But its functionary responsibility and its functionary performance requires an enormous number of skills. It requires exciting dramatic innovation, and, I'm afraid, ever since the inception of this portfolio in this province — and I'm not just criticizing this administration — it has never yet been able to acquire that or even, unfortunately, rightfully comprehend that fact.

Under a socialistic regime, the proper concept of the portfolio is far, far more restricted and far, far more hampered than it ever was or ever will be under any free, competitive enterprise system in this province. I say that the fact that it is being hampered is perhaps too mild a word, because it has essentially been emasculated. The reason for that fact is by virtue of some statements that were never innocuously conceived. A great deal of thought went into it by a great number of intelligent people, and it has been subscribed to. It essentially has formed the philosophical bulwark of the New Democratic Party in this province. I tend to think that it was the party that had the first opportunity to make effective inroad with it.

It inherited a province that was economically flourishing and economically thriving and a government that had a great deal of financial reserve. It came into a situation by good fortune and by good luck in its own sense to be able to do a job and perfect the theory that was conceived. As I say, a great deal of thought went into it. This deals with Prof. Watkins and his theory and his so-called Waffle Manifesto. A few of the statements in the Waffle Manifesto which are being followed by this government are of significance to consider. I would like to quote a few of them.

"The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists in factories and offices, on farms and campuses."

That is effectively happening in the Province of British Columbia today.

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

Well, you've interpolated that to read "the British Columbia people." That is effectively happening in the Province of British Columbia today. You're following this thing pretty well to the letter. I carry on with a quotation:

"A socialist society must be one in which there is democratic control of all institutions which have a major effect in men's lives and where there is equal opportunity for creative, non-exploitive self-development. It is now time to go beyond the welfare state."

That is the policy that you people have been following and are putting into practice in the Province of British Columbia continuously. Carrying on with a quotation, talking about control:

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

The fact that some people in this province fail to recognize that there is documentary evidence and documentary direction to the policies taken by the

[ Page 1242 ]

New Democratic Party in British Columbia I fail to comprehend, because nothing is subtle about it. This thing was subscribed to. It was subscribed to by the leading lights in the government, by the Minister of Finance and the Premier, with either hat, by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) sitting here tonight, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), who is not here at the moment, by the Hon. Speaker, who is listening in his office — yes, I suppose he is — and by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What about the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)? He just joined you.

MR. GARDOM: Did the Minister of Health subscribe to this too? Where is he? Oh, there he is.

How is your pulse?

He has got his red tie on tonight. Aha! There is a true test, you see.

We have to make this point, how very consistent the attitude and direction of this government is to the very ultrastate, supercontrolled, reign-by-regulation policies that it is following, and which are totally subscribed to by all of the governmental departments.

There is absolutely no way I would say to my colleagues in all of the opposition parties and in this party how one is unable to anticipate or expect this government, and specifically this Minister of this portfolio, to move in the direction and along the lines of the questions that you are asking him tonight that would be in the true and proper interests of economic development, because he is confined by the rigid policies and directions of the Waffle Manifesto.

Apart from the fact that this Ministry is a powerless factotum — it is sort of a Pooh-Bah Ministry, all pomp and no circumstance — it is totally subject to the whims of the Minister of Finance for its existence.

It's totally subject to the whim of the Minister of Mines, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and pretty well all of the control Ministers for it being able to move in any kind of a successful manner whatsoever. So, personally, I'm not disappointed. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised by the lack of success that this Minister has been able to exercise, even if he wished to do it. To all of the Members who have been so very, very hypercritical of the performance, I would say whatever else could you possibly expect? You didn't receive anything, but how could you have possibly expected anything more? Vain expectations and the progress of society have always been extremely distant cousins.

Now as I've said, this portfolio is today — I think it always has been — fettered by the unilateral actions that have been taken by the more senior portfolios: the Mines man, the Lands, Forests and Water Resources man; and the energy man who is not with us tonight; and Transport and Communications and purse strings who sits over there; and even old birds-and-bees who usually sits beside you, but he's not there tonight.

The Minister came in, talked about a couple of things, and I'm not going to dwell on it. He talked about pollution improvement. Well, that's utter rot. We all know that the government mills in Prince Rupert and Ocean Falls are the very worst polluters of all.

I'd like to talk about two specific things before I sit down: one innovative and the second one administrative. Dealing with an innovative thing, this is something that has been constantly advocated from this corner of the room year in and year out. It becomes somewhat of an unfortunate bore to many of the Members, and I apologize for that fact. But the concept is exceptionally worthwhile. It's terribly regrettable that we have not yet had an administration in this province that's been able to properly come to grips with it and to realize its true significance: that is, to have in the Province of British Columbia a scientific-industrial research organization or research park along the lines of the many, many, extremely well-established and effective ones that we have in other parts of this country and in other parts of the world.

In order that we are able in British Columbia to keep our expertise right at home so that we can process our natural products and not just cut them and dig them and catch them and then ship them away, I think there should be one policy in B.C., whatever the government may be — and I cannot understand why this government hasn't grasped this fact — that we've got to herald the demise of the policy of extract-and-run.

We have in this province, as a result of the gift of the good Lord, the greatest raw material and the best supply of natural energy, I suppose, anywhere in this continent and probably the best source of this kind anywhere in the world. The label that should become the label of British Columbia is "Made in B.C." That should become the effective label of this province. If we had this type of a scientific research organization, equipped by industry and participated in by industry in the Province of B.C. there would be able, I think, to be more terrific emphasis placed upon secondary industry than we've ever had before so that we're able to do the very thing that we've wished to do: make ourselves more self-supporting in that particular area.

Dealing with an administrative situation, I don't really know whether or not, Mr. Chairman, to congratulate the Hon. Minister upon his ascension to B.C. Rail or to commiserate with him. It has big, big, big problems. It's going to require a great deal more than spur-line effort and spur-line expertise to solve it. There are very serious financial difficulties on the

[ Page 1243 ]

horizon; there are very serious financial difficulties that have already been experienced, grave financial difficulties. Those are both from an operational point of view and from an expansionary point of view.

Perhaps we have to ask the Hon. Minister, since he must have this information. I don't know of anywhere else in the estimates that this can be debated. He's taken over from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and it's going to be an awful long time until we get to the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), without seat and without presence over the past long time.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never here. Where is he?

MR. GARDOM: But it's going to be difficult to determine. I'd ask the Hon. Minister: where are the greatest difficulties in this railway being experienced? Is it operational difficulty or is it expansionary difficulty? Is it receiving proper return for the function that it is now performing? Is its equipment up to snuff? Is it doing the job it should be doing? Is it properly staffed? Is it properly manpowered? Any problems to do with the wage scale?

Dealing with the expansion programme, how much more is this going to cost than it was estimated to cost? Is it going to be up 100 per cent,200 per cent,300 per cent,400 per cent or 500 per cent? Or is it going to be over that? The Hon. Minister has this information and I think he should inform this House. This could well involve millions and millions and millions of dollars.

People are resigning. We heard that the general manager, Mr. Trask, has resigned. We have just recently read that Mr. Mike Wakely, the chief engineer, is also moving out of the railway. In view of the fact that the 1973 report of Mr. Minty was as scathing as any report could possibly be of the accounting procedures and of the audit procedures of B.C. Rail, and in view of the fact that we find the general manager walking down the track and we find the chief engineer walking down the track, and also in view of the fact that its auditors and its comptrollers pulled out some time ago, and further in view of the fact, Mr. Minister, in one specific instance we find estimated contracts for the Dease Lake extension coming in at $5.2 million reaching 11.3 with an estimated 8.5 to finish (in other words, an estimated quantity of $5 million requiring $20 million to finish), and in view of the fact that there are now some lawsuits floating around alleging fraud and alleging conspiracy on the part of the railroad and its former vice-president, I would ask the Hon. Minister whether or not he has concluded it is time for a judicial inquiry into the accounting, estimating and bidding procedures of B.C. Rail and the reasons for the resignations and the departure of these four people from the railway.

There are very, very serious problems that are being presented. The general public has not been given any specifics. They have not been given any dollar figures, but one thing has become extremely evident. The B.C. Rail is in a financial mess and the public wants to know to what extent it is in a financial mess, what has to be done to bail it out of that financial mess, and who caused that financial mess. I pose those questions to the Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the remarks and the questions of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) there was some mention of the unemployment figures in British Columbia. You know, I don't like dealing with these figures, whether the unemployment is way down, according to the national average, or way up. I think it's really ridiculous that we do this in this House time after time after time. We blame the government in power. I admit that when some of my colleagues were in the opposition they criticized the poor Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot), who was unhappy enough in his job without having those kinds of attacks.

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

But let's deal with them. The March 15 figures indicate and the source is Statistics Canada, as always that we've gone down in the real, unadjusted portion from 107,000 to 101,000 in British Columbia.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're happy about the 101,000, aren't you?

HON. MR. LAUK: Of course I'm not! What a silly statement to make!

In B.C. the unadjusted figure is down 0.6 per cent, Mr. Chairman. In Canadian terms the unadjusted figure seems to be constant. The adjusted figure: B.C. down 0.1 per cent, the Canadian adjusted figure up 0.4 per cent. That doesn't seem to be consistent with some sort of special situation in British Columbia that's discouraging employment and job creation.

I think it's clear from the reports that we have that there has been a great deal of job creation and you can look over a longer period of time. Relative to its share of the labour force British Columbia contributes more than proportionately to annual job creation in Canada. Over the past five years British Columbia has provided 14.8 per cent of all new employment in the country while only representing 10.6 per cent of the Canadian labour force. In 1974 15.6 per cent of new jobs were in British Columbia while the British Columbia share of Canada's labour force stood at 11 per cent. So British Columbia's not

[ Page 1244 ]

doing too badly in that regard.

You also know, Mr. Member and members of the committee, through you, Mr. Chairman, that our growth rate is at about 3 per cent. It varies but it's very high — it's extremely high — both through immigrant and in-migration to the coast and to British Columbia generally. It taxes the resources of the governments at all levels — municipal and provincial and federal — to meet the kinds of needs that are required by the movement of these masses of people. I think it's a mistake to believe that we're going to be able to solve that problem at the provincial level when we have no control over our borders and we have the demands of the indigenous population demanding a slower growth period.

In spite of that, or in relation to it, it is the government's policy to continue a growth pattern in British Columbia. There should be no suggestion that we are discouraging growth.

The attempts that we have made to obtain a greater share of the resource revenue of this province for the people of British Columbia to support our social programmes have been legitimate and sincere, and I think that it is unfair to blame the downturn in the mining industry so entirely upon the fact that we brought in royalty legislation.

I think that one has to look at the global market situation and the glut on the world market. It is very clear that mines throughout the world are closing. In the United States, a total of 345,000 tons per year in mines, in copper, have been closed in 1974-75; in the Philippines, 6,000-ton mines of Black Mountain Consolidated; Australia, the famous Peco and Wariga Mines closed, 13,000 tons per annum, and so on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Anaconda, Esarsco, Duval, these are all in the United States. What socialist governments are there?

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the glut of copper and other metals on the world market has made it impossible to sell at a price that will keep all of the mines operating. Once we have a situation when these metals are in somewhat shorter supply, the prices will go up to the extent where we can employ the miners that have been laid off both in this country, in the United States, the Philippines, Australia, New Guinea, in other SEAPEC countries, in Chile, Peru, Zambia, and Zaire.

Mr. Chairman, there are other questions that were raised. It seems to me that the political climate may have an effect on local businessmen sometimes in their investment pattern. Without commenting in too much detail there I think that this does not reflect the tendency to invest in this country from outside, from foreign investors.

We are making a fairly definitive statement to the Minister of Trade and Industry (Hon. Mr. Gillespie) in Ottawa that his Foreign Investment Review Act should reflect the needs of the resource-based province. We think that his proposals of maximum Canadian ownership of resource companies to a resource province such as us — restricting this kind of thing — affects a resource province such as ours. We have control through the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) of regulation. We don't have to worry about putting a flag on foreign investment. We've got the control here.

This is the story we are telling him. We don't like federal government interference in that investment pattern. We feel it is tampering with a very delicate and dangerous global investment situation. In the past two years, the only and the major effect on foreign investors has been the federal tampering in investment in resource-based provinces. That's clear. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that, and I have made that point absolutely clear to the federal Minister. There is no excuse for it, and if I had a philosophy of a conspiracy theory of life, I would think that Alistair Gillespie is trying to force the resource-based industries in B.C. to go to central Canada for their financing.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), both you and I and the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) curse the eastern financial institutions, and have done so for many years, and you know it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know it. You know what they have done to us.

One of the Hon. Members raised the question of mineral exploration in the Yukon. I have explained the glut on the market and the question today is not exploration. The question today is production and sales.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MR. LAUK: The question today is not exploration.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, that's where you are wrong.

HON. MR. LAUK: You can find all the copper you want, but we've got enough production in this province and we can't sell it. That's the fact. If production were increased, if sales were increased, if the market was better, exploration would increase, and you know that too.

[ Page 1245 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't be ridiculous! You're showing your ignorance of your department.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I've always been very flattered when the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) refers to my speeches. One never knows how good they are until someone else reads them back to you, and I appreciate that. I think they are excellent speeches. They were very well read, too, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That was a pretty old one, though.

HON. MR. LAUK: You have a very good courtroom presence. I think the speeches were correct. I think that you read most of them. You should have read all of them. They would have explained the position that I took then and that I take now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't think so. The only surprising point you raised there was the trade missions, but I said "not all trade missions." We are sending trade missions now without Ministerial presence, sending only businessmen in contact with foreign markets. They have been very successful. Ask some of the private entrepreneurs who you seem to want to represent every day...and they don't seem to want you. Ask them about how these trade missions are going. You raise an interesting point.

Your colleague, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) raised the point last year on a research park for this province. I commissioned a study. The study is now complete.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, I didn't find any studies on a research park, so I commissioned one. It is a good study and it is being actively considered by the government at this date.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, if I just might respond.... The Hon. Minister, in his new capacity as one of the directors of B.C. Rail, and this being one of his estimates....

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, I was going to get to that. Will you yield for a moment?

MR. GARDOM: I would be delighted.

HON. MR. LAUK: I thank the Hon. Member. You raise questions involving the running of the railway, and although I made comments earlier in my estimates, I think that it is appropriate to indicate, Mr. Chairman, to the Members of this committee, as they well know, that I was appointed at the Easter break. I have had an opportunity to read some of the material involving BCR, not all of it. I don't think that I can answer these questions at this time, nor do I think the executive vice-president of the railroad should answer these questions when the president of the railroad will be available to do so. I refer your questions to the president of the railroad.

MR. CHABOT: Big Daddy.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Is he the executive vice-president?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, right.

MR. GARDOM: We were unaware of the Hon. the Minister's position but he certainly has an exceptionally responsible position with the railroad. It would seem very appropriate to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon, Minister acquaint himself with the very extremely serious difficulties that this railroad is experiencing, because the power of questioning other people is going to be extremely limited. The Minister of Finance's estimates have disappeared. Are they likely to come back to the floor again? He said no. t is my recollection that we have dealt with the Minister of Finance's estimates, have we not?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, I didn't know they were passed.

MR. GARDOM: You didn't know the Minister of Finance's estimates were passed? The Minister of Economic Development is unaware that the Minister of Finance's estimates have passed. Would someone please send him a note and inform him of that fact?

However, it would seem to me, Mr. Minister and, specifically, Mr. Executive Vice-President of the British Columbia Railway, that in view of the evidence that has been accumulated in this province of the scandalous accounting and the scandalous estimating and the scandalous hindering procedures and the scandalous bidding procedures.... And, I'd say, the absolutely scandalous public accountability was very obvious and already made public cost increases which are staggering, or some combination of all six. Those are very strong words.

I am very concerned with public value. I would say that any one of those six points has got to be answered to the general public and the questions that they have not had answered. They are very, very serious questions. I think the public is entitled to a full and complete and impartial and in-depth

[ Page 1246 ]

explanation, which they have not received. I think the public would be best served by the calm and analytical process of an independent judicial inquiry under the supervision of the British Columbia Public Inquiries Act and right outside of the political arena and the heat of the political kitchen.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Point of information. The question of why the Hon. Member is continuing along this line of debate is his concern that he will not have an opportunity to discuss this with the president of the railroad. I would like to point out that although the Minister's estimates are complete, you will note that there is Bill 27 on the order paper. You will have an opportunity to question the Minister of Finance.

MR. GARDOM: This is a very interesting departure from the rules of debate that has been indicated by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party tonight. When the government chooses to restrict debate to the strict confines of a bill, do you ever do it, Madam Minister! We have been ruled out time and time again on the opposition side by the Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You certainly have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never! Never!

MR. GARDOM: Oh, baloney never! Baloney never!

AN HON. MEMBER: Never, on a point of order, on a bill.

MR. GARDOM: You are making up in quantity what you lack in quality, Mr. Provincial Secretary, when you come out with a statement such as that.

If the Hon. House Leader is now prepared to commit the government and herself on an undertaking basis that there may be a complete debate on the financial structure of the B.C. Rail during the reading of this bill, that would be a very interesting statement and I'd like the Hon. House Leader to indicate to this House if she's prepared to do that.

Would you like to answer that?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: ...to repeat my statement: there will be an opportunity during the debate on that Bill 27 to ask questions of the Minister of Finance re the B.C. Railway.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, well, that's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, Hon, Member, you have had the assurance.

MR. GARDOM: With every respect, Mr. Chairman, I have had a very general statement; I wish a specific assurance, not a general statement. I don't consider I've received a specific assurance, unless the Minister would so convey that I have received that. I'm sure that every Member of the opposition would like to know that. But we have not received such a specific assurance.

So the first point that I'm making with the Hon. Minister, who is the executive vice-president of the B.C. Rail, is whether or not he would be prepared, in view of the matters that I have mentioned — the scandalous accounting, estimating and tendering procedures, budgeting, public accountability, the fact that these people are departing from this ship left, right and centre — whether or not it's in the public interest that there be an independent judicial inquiry.

The second and more important question, in view of the history of the administrations that we've had in this province — more specifically, providing to the general public an administration that is completely above board — would this Hon. Minister be prepared to say that he would recommend the establishment of an auditor-general who would have independent expertise, power and interest to reveal — as opposed to the opposite of revealing — a person who could report independently to the Legislature on any excesses along the lines which I have occasioned and take it out of the political arena and let the general public have true, proper and effective accountability?

HON. MR. LAUK: I have indicated clearly that those questions should be directed to the president of the railway. I repeat that. You have the assurance of the House Leader that there will be a thorough discussion at that time. I'm still familiarizing myself with the workings of the railway, the department, the reports....

MR. PHILLIPS: You knew all about it yesterday afternoon.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: I hope you listened carefully to what I did say yesterday.

But, you know, there's one thing that surprises me in the twilight hours of my estimates. They talk about....

Interjections.

[ Page 1247 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please, Hon. Members? The Minister has the floor.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and other Members talked about this portfolio....

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I know it's getting rather late, Mr. Chairman. Some of the Members are taking leave of their senses.

MR. GARDOM: Order.

HON. MR. LAUK: The criticism of this portfolio is that it didn't have an active arm. For years it was suggested to the former administration by many Members of the Liberal benches that there be a development corporation. You seem to have completely ignored that through these entire estimates. You have not asked my any questions on that development corporation — not one. I consider that an irresponsible act on the part of the loyal opposition. A development corporation that has capitalized at $25 million, that can have an aggregate amount of debt to $100 million, that's been active in this province, and not one question has been asked. I wonder why, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says nothing has been asked as far as the B.C. Development Corp. Is concerned. He seems to think that it's a very important arm of his department. But I happen to have the single copy of his annual report of 1974....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are the copies you promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where are the reports? Where are the copies you promised?

MR. CHABOT: I borrowed it.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I borrowed mine from the Clerk's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please? Your colleague is speaking.

MR. CHABOT: I find that the British Columbia Development Corp. doesn't have very high priority as far as your annual report is concerned. There are exactly four paragraphs dealing with the British Columbia Development Corp.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on. Right on.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: It'll be a cover-up. You'll file it after your estimates are done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River has the floor.

MR. FRASER: A cover-up! A snow job!

MR. CHABOT: I find that considerably more space has been devoted in this annual report to women's economic rights than has been given to the B.C. Development Corp.

HON. MR. LAUK: I know you're against women's rights. I'll tell....

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister here, who established women's economic rights in February, 1975, devotes more space and more words to this new branch of his department than to the B.C. Development Corp. Now I'm wondering if the Minister's suggesting that discrimination took place by his department prior to the establishment of this women's economic rights branch. Is that what he's suggesting? Is that the reason why there's the need for the establishment of this new branch of your department — because you and your department discriminated against women? Is that the reason why it's necessary? Is that the reason why it occupies more space in your annual report than the Development Corp. does? Or is it a cheap political ploy on the part of the Minister? A motherhood issue will be covered by the appointment of a token woman in his department, as they've done in other departments as well.

Certainly there should not be discrimination against women in your department. Women should be treated equally by your department. That's how they should be treated. Your appointment of a token woman in your department isn't going to help the lot of women in British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or the wives of unemployed miners.

MR. CHABOT: No, I maintain that they should all have equal opportunity in British Columbia to get into the economic field or the business world or the

[ Page 1248 ]

job place.

HON. MR. LAUK: When you were the government you didn't even know the meaning of the word "equal." You didn't have a clue.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): You had discriminatory laws.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: We have a human rights branch in British Columbia to look after....

HON. MS. YOUNG: Your human rights branch was a farce, pure and simple.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, you're suggesting that the human rights branch isn't doing anything? Now the Minister of Consumer Services says that it's a farce, the human rights branch. It's not doing a job: that's what she's suggesting.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: We find that the Expo '74 report is substantially twice as long as that of the B.C. Development Corp. We're certainly not trying to downgrade the efforts of Expo '74, but I do want to say that the B.C. Development Corp. should have occupied substantially more room in your annual report — which says very little, in fact, when one examines your annual report. It talks about the trade missions which you were opposed to as soon as you became Minister but now support.

Last year in the Legislature, during the estimates of your department, you said that the reason for the delay in the annual report last year was because you wanted to put more facts into the annual report. Well, I suggest that last year's annual report did have a few more facts — not a few more, substantially more facts — than appear in your annual report this year, because it is void of facts, your annual report this year. It says absolutely nothing.

Also, last year you suggested that the investment world, the business community, was lining up at your door to invest in British Columbia. You suggested that there was investment capital attempting to get into your office from central Canada, Japan, Germany and Britain. I'm wondering if the Minister would tell us just what investment capital has been attracted from these areas either here in Canada or elsewhere.

I don't think that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was out of place when he asked for your policy, what the policy of your portfolio is — your philosophy as far as the management of your administrative responsibilities in your department are concerned. There's nothing wrong with that. You must have some particular philosophy, some guiding light that suggests to you what's right and what's wrong, certain terms of reference. Or don't you have these? Is it a willy-nilly operation you're administering over there? Or do you have some philosophy as far as the administration of your department is concerned? You certainly should have if you haven't.

The Minister mentioned the Molson hop farm. I want to ask a few questions regarding the land the department is attempting to secure, the agricultural land that the department is attempting to secure. I know full well the philosophy of the Minister regarding agricultural land reserves because he stated it very clearly at the time of the Tilbury Island industrial park development where he said that the Land Commission Act was not designed to protect all farmland in British Columbia.

We know what's happening in Surrey, the 1,500 to 2,000 acres of farmland that is being set aside there for industrial development.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), the apologist for the government, who is not here, who is on a political junket at this time at the taxpayers' expense — not as an official delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference, but as an "observer," a little reward for being an apologist for the government, for being an apologist for the government, for being an apologist for the desecration of farmland in the Surrey area — he even had the gall, when he spoke, to suggest: "Oh, there are only a few hundred acres that are suitable to agriculture."

We also heard the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), another apologist for the government. But what bothers me is the obsession that department has, and that is the accumulation of land for industrial park sites. That appears to be the sole function fulfilled by that Minister since he's been in government.

Now two questions regarding the Kamloops agricultural land, the former Molson hop farm that will be turned into an industrial park. There's a substantial article on the government's move onto the former hop farm. It reads as follows: "The provincial government agency wants to spend millions of dollars to put an industrial park on both sides of a four-mile stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway here. There are a couple of snags it has to overcome first. The government's own Land Commission has put much of the proposed site in the agricultural reserve, freezing it from development." Well, they've overcome that snag.

Then the provincial Highways department, which has to approve all development along arterial routes, let it be known they would not approve a similar but smaller plan put forward earlier for the area because

[ Page 1249 ]

of the traffic problems that would result. This earlier plan was put forward by 12 local business and professional men who had bought 900 acres of the old Molson hop farm property about nine miles east of the downtown plan. The new plan comes from the government owned B.C. Development Corp. It has agreed to buy 460 of the 900 acres, provided the land is taken out of the agricultural freeze and that the Highways department gives the go-ahead for a multi-million dollar industrial park on it. Accountant Larry Campbell, spokesman for the Kamloops group and president of the company it formed in 1972 to buy the land, Kaymor Investment Ltd., refused in an interview to state the price the government agency is offering. Neither David Corbin, president of the development corporation, nor Ken Shaughnessy, the man who negotiated for it could be reached for immediate comment. Land registry records show the Kamloops group paid $1.3 million: $500,000 down and $800,000 on a three-year, 7 per cent mortgage taken by Molson's for the whole 900 acres. Speculation in Kamloops business circles is that the government agency will be paying more than this for its half of the property. Figures being bandied around the interior city vary from $2.5 million to $10 million, I wonder whether the Minister now is prepared to say what it has offered for half of the land that was purchased at $1.3 million, or what the B.C. Development Corp. proposes to pay for that land and the acreage involved. Also, will the Minister state where the corporation's negotiations presently stand with the Department of Highways relative to access. The Department of Highways has indicated that it would generate a serious traffic problem along this four-mile stretch of road, and I know full well the great difficulties that private individuals, or companies, or businesses experience in attempting to get access onto the Trans-Canada Highway. Is it going to be easier for the B.C. Development Corp. to gain access to this highway?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it's between $4,000 and $5,000 an acre.

MR. CHABOT: How many acres are involved?

HON. MR. LAUK: I've looked through my notes and I can't find the exact acreage. It's over 400 acres.

MR. CHABOT: It says 460.

HON. MR. LAUK: That sounds about correct. I could get the exact figure for you tomorrow. But I do know it's about $5,000 an acre offered to Kaymor. That's the option price from the development corporation. I could have more definitive figures for you tomorrow.

The second point you raised — no, it will not be easier. The negotiations between the corporation officials and the officials of the Department of Highways are continuing.

MR. FRASER: I would like to add a few comments here. First of all I would like to reply to the remarks of the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) late this afternoon. You will probably recall them, Mr. Chairman. He was happy with everything that happened in his riding regarding this portfolio. But I wonder whether the Member for Skeena is listening to the wrong people, because I have a letter in front of me here now that says that everything isn't so well in Skeena, particularly with the Economic Development portfolio.

As a matter of fact, they say that the Member for Skeena doesn't give a damn; and this is right in this letter. These people have lost their jobs through government inaction. I wonder whether the Member for Skeena is listening to the wrong people, when he stood up in high praise of this do-nothing Department of Economic Development and this do-nothing Minister. This letter certainly counteracts all that.

I'm not going to bother reading the letter, Mr. Chairman, but you probably know these people. It is signed by Mrs. E. DeMarchi. Have you heard that name, Mr. Chairman? Well, I'll send you a copy of it. But I don't think the Member for Skeena is doing himself too much good standing up for this do-nothing Department of Economic Development and, more specifically, the do-nothing Minister.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, in that regard that the prior Minister sat on his fat stats, and so does this one continue to do the same thing.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I left that up to the Member for Vancouver Centre. He's quite vocal on that.

Anyway, what I want to say here tonight is that I want some answers to what I said yesterday. Nobody has had any answers from this Minister. That's why we are still churning up the debate here, trying to get answers.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, he was asked several times yesterday, and again today, about the northern development, and more specifically the connection for the railroad, the BCR from Clinton to Ashcroft. He's been dead silent on an answer to that. He hasn't said one thing, and I think it is about time that we had an answer. As was said yesterday by myself and several other people here, this is a very important connection and there is going to be a calamity in the Fraser Canyon, and we have no alternate route for the mainline railroads to the coast. This Clinton-Ashcroft connection would supply this alternate route. He has successfully evaded even

[ Page 1250 ]

discussing this, and I'd like to hear.... I'm glad to see he is writing notes, so I know that we will have a I clear and definite answer from him when I sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the porcupine pie?

MR. FRASER: Well, I'm coming to the porcupine pie too, Mr. Chairman. That speech will ring in your ears come next election, believe me. Mr. Chairman, as long as that bunch is government that's what we are going to be eating come next election, believe me — porcupine pie. There will be nothing left here to eat because you will have destroyed everything by then.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Well, I'm afraid of that.

The other item that the Minister brushed off is the resignation of Mr. Trask. I am highly incensed that he maintains silence on that and doesn't want to talk about it, and keeps on referring it to Big Daddy, who is in Ottawa shooting his pride down there. I can't help it if he's there, but he's the executive vice-president of the railway, and he knows what happened to Mr. Trask. Why doesn't he get up here and tell this House and the public of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Trask resigned a week ago Monday. Who is running the BCR, I'd like to know? Mac Norris, the vice-president, has been in the office about three days since January. Who's running it? Nobody is running it. That's a serious item for everybody in the central interior, and the next thing is that it will stop running. Then you will have all kinds of excuses why it stopped. But the people want to know. The shippers want to know. The employees of the railroad want to know. And you owe a responsibility to the citizens to tell them.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday when I spoke on the BCR, this do-nothing Minister got up and said: "Oh, yeah, sure, we've got troubles in the BCR, but the real scandal was the last 20 years." Gee, I hope what he said yesterday was right, that the president of the railroad will get up and tell us about the 20-year scandal of the railroad.

But before he does, I'll tell you some facts about the railroad. A lot of those government Members over there weren't even in this province when they made a railroad out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. LEA: Name names.

MR. FRASER: That's right. You weren't even ere. You don't know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. LEA: Name names.

MR. FRASER: That railroad was started in World War I, taken over by the provincial government, and run from Squamish to Quesnel. It had no connection with tidewater. Every government from 1916 to 1952 said they'd complete it to tidewater and take it up to the Peace River and into the Omineca country where it is today.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you something.

HON. MR. COCKE: Get back on your white horse.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I didn't say that. They had to barge.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Now, listen, Mr. Chairman, I don't need those oatmeal savages telling me. (Laughter.) You only came out from Scotland a couple of years ago, like the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and they start telling everybody in British Columbia how o run B.C. I resent that fact.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: I mean it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all Members please not interrupt the Hon. Member for Cariboo?

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. None of those Scotchmen get along, and they never will. But when they set themselves up as experts in the history of British Columbia, I resent that. I'm going to tell you something, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan): Squamish is on tidewater, but they had to transfer their live cattle, their lumber, everything to barges.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, but this fellow here says there

[ Page 1251 ]

will be a big scandal, this do-nothing Minister of Economic Development. I'll tell you a little. I hope they walk into that head-first like they walked into the Columbia River deal. Now they're hiding their heads in the sand on that one. They're going to walk head-first into this one. Mr. Chairman, I'm urging them to come forward with this scandal on the BCR. We had a Toonerville Trolley running from Squamish to Quesnel from 1916 to 1952, and it didn't have a terminus anywhere.

We called it the "Please Go Easy," "Pigs Going East," "Prince George Eventually." And what happened? We got a new government in 1952. They didn't make any promises; they built the railroad from Squamish to North Vancouver, and from Quesnel to Prince George, and from Prince George to the Peace River, and from Prince George to where you fellows have gummed it up. It's all stopped, heading towards Dease Lake. That is the record of the prior administration. When we have the Premier of this province come back here and relate his scandal, I hope he walks right into it.

Everybody in the interior of this province knows what happened to the BCR from 1952 to 1972. It was made into a functional railroad.

Mr. Chairman, what has this government done about it? They have taken it from a functional railroad in 1972 and ruined it in two and a half years. Now we're right back into Toonerville Trolley times and it is again a laughing stock of this province because of no direction by the board of directors of which this Minister is executive vice-president.

I want to repeat that I know all about the history of the railroad and so do the people in the interior of this province. They want to make a scandal. Sure, there might have been more money spent on construction than was originally estimated. This government changed the rules of the game. It was a pioneer railroad but it was pushed through. They came along and decided they had to upgrade it. Of course, they doubled and tripled the cost, and in some cases increased 10 times the cost of construction. But it was originally put in as a pioneer and a resource railroad, and that is what it achieved. They got it functioning after politicians from 1916 to 1952 promised to do it. When the prior administration came in, they did it.

I have a personal interest in this. My father was an MLA for Cariboo during World War I. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he had a little political difficulty. It was this: he was first elected in 1912 and he got defeated in 1916. Do you know why? Because when he campaigned in 1912 in Cariboo, he told the Cariboo people that, if they elected him, he would see the railroad was completed from Squamish to North Vancouver and from Quesnel at least to Prince George. He couldn't convince the then administration that he was part of to make this happen and so he was defeated by the Cariboo people in 1916.

I don't like these Scotchmen coming over here from Scotland as recently as 1960 and telling us about the history of British Columbia.

I am proud that my family is part of it and I'm just relating part of it now — the political history — and relate it to the BCR. For this pip-squeak government to get up now and say it was nothing but a scandal, I say, "Let him get up and walk right in to it," because there won't be one socialist elected north of Kamloops in any event, and there'll be a landslide if the Premier wants to go on that attack. I realize that that will probably happen, but I'll just send a warning through the Minister here that he's walking into a real trap, In conclusion, the BCR is the lifeline of the community of the central interior, not only in my riding but in Omineca and everywhere else. I'm quite happy to see that the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) hasn't honoured us with his presence all week when we are debating this, and I'd like to know where he is. I checked his attendance record today and I think since we started on February 18, he's been here about 40 per cent of the time.

I'd also like to know where the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) is. I imagine they're both in the Cariboo, and if they are, I don't think they'll ever return. But where's he? The BCR affects his riding. It made his riding. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that in his riding, before the railroad went in there in about 1968 or 1969 or 1970, they had to truck their lumber 100 miles to a railhead? Now the railroad goes right through the back door and it made that industry viable in the Omineca riding. Why isn't he here to say his piece? Where is he? I'd like you to find out, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. LEA: If you tell us where Son of Daddy is, we'll tell you where he is.

MR. FRASER: Well, you're on the record on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Bluebeard?

MR. SMITH: Right next to you.

MR. FRASER: In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like that Minister now to level with this House and tell us where Mr. Trask is. Who was running the railroad last week and this week? He's gone, Mr. Wakely has gone — the chief engineer — and the vice-president comes in once in a while for a cup of

[ Page 1252 ]

coffee. Who is actually running this important communication link in our province? Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, that it will lose at least $10 million. That's bad enough because all the taxpayers of this province have to pick that up, but the citizens in the central interior have lost that much or more because of the inefficient operation of this railway. It has to stop and stop fast.

The Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked for a judicial inquiry. I haven't much time for judicial inquiries because I guess I really haven't too much time for lawyers. I realize the Second Member for Point Grey is a lawyer and the Minister is a lawyer, but, believe me, they can churn things up so bad that the public — the ordinary citizen — never knows where they're at.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Do you know where you're at?

MR. FRASER: I don't think we need a judicial inquiry, Mr. Chairman. All I think is that you should get in there and ask some questions and get it resolved. But don't wait for Big Daddy to come back from Ottawa. The jet might crash. What are you going to do then, if he never gets back? We might even have a by-election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: In all seriousness, it's up to you. You have the responsibility of the executive vice-president, and I would like you to level with this House. Who's running that railway? What has happened to these very vital people who are gone? Where are we going?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I should respond to the complimentary remarks of the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). He talks first of all about "Scotchmen." Of course, Scotch only means one thing. The word happens to be Scotsmen, not Scotchmen. Regardless of that, I really feel quite complimented that he's so concerned about Scotsmen coming over to take part in public life in British Columbia and elsewhere. I think in the same way that the Member for Cariboo is proud of his father's history and his contribution to this province, I'm very proud of what Scotsmen have done for Canada as a whole, and I'm not ashamed to say it.

If you look at some institution like McGill University and just look and see who was responsible for the founding of McGill University, it was half-a-dozen Scotsmen who had the vision and the foresight to come over and not be afraid to spread their wings and their ideas and contribute to society and the educational system.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. WALLACE: I see the Member for Cariboo is after everybody, including the grizzly bear, tonight. He's been after the lawyers, he's been after the Scotsmen, he's been after executive vice-presidents. I think that we look forward eagerly to the real debate on the B.C. Railway.

I really just wanted to raise another point briefly tonight, Mr. Chairman. It was with regard to the Minister's announcement of the women's economic rights branch in his department. I really find that very interesting, the more I look back over the record.

The NDP believes that this government should have a department for women's affairs as a separate department. I don't plan to debate the pros and cons of that, but I notice as I look through the records of the different departments that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has established a task force regarding women's opportunities in engineering. Of course, we already have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) with the Human Rights Commission and Mrs. Ruff doing a good job on that, in my opinion. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has appointed, I understand, a lady by the name of Reiva Dexter to look into the question of sexual discrimination in the curriculum and in the textbooks. Now we have the Minister of Economic Development who has created this branch to try and investigate and enhance the equality of rights in the economic sphere in British Columbia.

I really just have two or three questions. First of all, would it not seem better to have one department dealing with equality for women, which I think all parties in this House sincerely believe in? This piecemeal development of a bit here and a bit there through different departments seems to me to lead to inefficiency and perhaps is falling short of the ultimate goal that could be realized.

I thought it was very interesting that one of our lady Members in commenting a month or so ago paid the Premier of the province a questionable compliment when she said that she thought he would finally get around to supporting the concept but that some people are just slower thinkers than others. I just wonder whether, apart from the fact that that really seals her doom about ever getting into the cabinet, the Minister could tell us on what basis this new department was set up and whether there was consultation in cabinet. If there is to be this piecemeal development of women's department branches and women's affairs in all the different departments, who is next? Or is there not some serious consideration to setting up a separate department?

The other question I would like to ask relates to a

[ Page 1253 ]

report that appeared on the subject saying that Mrs. Kayner, who was the chairman, I gather, of the branch, said that she will report directly to the Deputy Minister. The part that puzzled me said:

"She will be supported by a team of economists, sociologists and other personnel, all of whom have a knowledge of women's movements. The branch will offer support and advice to women who want to enter business, and will present recommendations so that government programmes can offer equal benefits to men and women."

I looked through the estimates of the Minister's department and I can't see any particular increase in staff. I think the staff has increased by a net amount of one person, as I can remember — 102 instead of 101.

But I wonder if this statement that this branch chairman or director will be supported by a team of economists, sociologists and other personnel suggests that we are embarked on a fairly substantial expansion of staff for this very specific purpose when the same sort of purpose is being sought in other departments of government in the way that I've already mentioned.

And the last point: someone mentioned statistics earlier on tonight and how the former Minister was criticized as simply being a man who churned out statistics. I notice that the Minister announced the other day that this government is considering a statistics Act which, interestingly enough, was reported as being considered as the result of pressure from the federal government. One of the statements the Minister made was that the provincial civil servants handling information relating to individuals would be required to take an oath guaranteeing the protection of the statistics. This seemed to me really like saying something that should surely already be the case. Is the Minister suggesting that under our present system, with whatever relevant detail is handled by his department, he has uncertainty about the confidences that are maintained in regard to these figures and facts?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: A Member interjects that that was pulled out of the Act, and maybe so, but I'm asking if it is not just an integral part of being a civil servant that you preserve confidence in the material that crosses your desk.

It may not have come across in the report the way the Minister intended, but the report certainly reads to the effect that civil servants handling such information would be required to take an oath guaranteeing the protection of statistics and would be subject to severe legal penalties if they broke this oath.

It just seems to me that surely every civil servant on employment undertakes that kind of oath. I hope that one of the reasons we're not having another new piece of legislation is really just for the purpose of achieving something that should already be the case.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the women's economic rights branch can be staffed by positions available in the establishment. We didn't have to increase the establishment. We haven't staffed, in other words, up to our maximum allowable establishment, so we're using positions.... We're allowed 107 under our existing establishment, and I don't foresee any need to increase that in this fiscal year. We felt that the women's economic rights branch should be integrated and completely a part of the department; it's not an appendage. Assigned to Eileen Kainer will be staff people and positions that are vacant, and that's how we've designed that.

The statistics Act was as a result of some remarks that I made to people who attended a conference of statisticians. The chief dominion statistician was there and several other people. The question arose of whether we would continue to get the detailed information we get from Statistics Canada and, in addition to that, the specific information on a regional and even a municipal basis.

When you provide statistical information on a regional and a specific area, it's fairly easy for individuals to identify whom they're talking about — in other words, who represents the statistics. When it comes to business enterprises and so on, or when it comes to personal statistics, this may become a question of secrecy. For that reason the federal government indicated to us that they may not give us the regional and municipal data that we would require through their census unless we provided the same kind of oath and protections that are outlined in section 10 of the federal Act, which are much more stringent than the sections that were in the old industrial development Act.

They were eliminated when we brought in a new Economic Development statute, and they were eliminated for a good reason. We felt that we were receiving maximum cooperation. On the advice of my officials, there was no need to have the compellability that was in those sections, as there are in the dominion statutes and in most provincial statutes — in other words, compelling individuals and corporations to provide or answer and return and respond, and so on, to the questionnaires that are taken from time to time.

But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman and the Members of this House and the people of this province, that their returns are protected by the general oath. I've established standing orders within my department to that effect. Only specific people handle the statistics and they, without the necessity

[ Page 1254 ]

of statutory authority, take an oath in a specific undertaking with respect to the use of those statistics.

The more desirable approach is to bring in some kind of a statistics Act. But again, we're still continuing our discussions with the chief statistician and his officials, and the cooperation continues. There's no danger at this stage of us being cut off information. Perhaps in the following session we'll bring in some form of statute that will protect respondents in a clear public way, and the Legislature can so state.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to discuss with the Minister some of the figures he gave this House earlier on tonight about British Columbia's performance in the field of employment. I found them puzzling, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman. The Minister indicated that British Columbia had had something like over 14 per cent of the Canadian increase in employment over a recent period. I said to myself: how can things be that good when the fact of the matter is that from January, 1974, when unemployment in British Columbia was 70,000 people, it went to 102,000 in January, 1975? I said to myself: how can our performance really be that good?

Incidentally, Mr. Minister, I'm using the January-over-January figures in the February, 1975, edition of The Labour Force, because they're not marked as subject to statistical error in the way that the February figures are.

What are the actual factors revealed in this publication? The increase in employment in British Columbia, year over year, January over January, of British Columbia as a percentage of Canadian increase in unemployment wasn't 14-some-odd per cent; it was 10.9 per cent. It was exactly the share that British Columbia has of our nation's population. We didn't do better than one would have expected, as the Minister suggested to this House. Mr. Chairman, we did far worse than one would have expected, because during that time our labour force was growing by some 3 per cent.

Just to keep up we should have had 14 per cent of the nation's growth in employment, and we didn't have that. We didn't keep up with it. Where does that Minister get his numbers, Mr. Chairman?

The fact of the matter is that unemployment in British Columbia a year ago January was 6.9 per cent. In January, 1975, it was 9.6 per cent, and those are the numbers. Those are the real numbers I'm asking that Minister to explain to this House on the basis of the policies of his department and his government and what it is doing to the jobs of British Columbians.

HON. MR. LAUK: I can play games with the Masters of Business Administration all day with statistics.

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

HON. MR. LAUK: He can make them say what he wants, and I can make them say what I want, and the public is no better off for it. I said clearly that over a five-year period these figures were accurate. I think it's unjustified to take short periods of time and indicate some kind of trend. In addition, I said in 1974.... I beg your pardon?

MR. GIBSON: You haven't been in power for five years.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, we've been in power for a period of time during those five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too long.

HON. MR. LAUK: In 1974 I stated clearly — that's from January to December, 1974 — that we created 15.6 per cent of the new jobs, while the British Columbia share of the Canadian labour force was 11 per cent.

MR. CHABOT: A brief question to the Minister. Could the Minister tell me whether negotiations have been finalized for the purchase of the Molson hop farm — the portion that's going to be purchased by the B.C. Development Corp. — whether negotiations are finalized, whether the purchase has been consummated?

HON. MR. LAUK: As I understand it, the option was contingent on two things: that the land would not be in the agricultural land reserve and, No. 2, that matters can be mutually settled between the corporation and officials of the Highways department with respect to access.

MR. CHABOT: One short question regarding this. Does the Minister think the purchase price is not exorbitant? The land was purchased by 12 businessmen from the Kamloops area. The company was formed in 1972. I'm not sure just when it was purchased, whether it was 1972 or 1973. It was purchased at $1.3 million, with $500,000 down and $800,000 a year for a three-year period — over a three-year period. I can't quite read that. Anyway, the total is $1.3...yes, that's right, $800,000 is the balance to be paid over a three-year period, for a total of $1.3 million. Now you've purchased roughly half of this for $5,000 an acre, which is $2.3 million. These 12 businessmen in the Kamloops area made $1 million from the taxpayers, and they've sold only half of the land.

In other words, from the time they purchased the land, be it in the fall of 1972 or 1973, the value has increased from $1.3 million to $4.6 million, a very

[ Page 1255 ]

exorbitant increase in the value of that land as far as I'm concerned, I think that you've been taken, Mr. Minister — or your corporation has been taken — to the tune of $1 million. Wouldn't you think that the purchase of half of that land at the $1.3 million would be ample? Why should these businessmen, during the short period they held that land, be able to make $1 million from the taxpayers and still have half their land?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'll provide the committee with the report on the land purchase from the Development Corp. I'll ask for one tomorrow. Perhaps it'll be Monday before I could circulate it.

MR. CHABOT: Will your estimates still be under consideration on Monday? Will we have an opportunity to ask you a few questions regarding this apparent waste of taxpayers' money?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I can get a report on what the corporation's standing is with respect to the land — the price, the number of acres — and ask leave to make a statement to the House without using time of the question period and without arousing the petulance of the opposition.

MR. CHABOT: Is there any reason why the Minister couldn't get this information for us tomorrow?

HON. MR. COCKE: He doesn't feel like it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health says he doesn't feel like it, Mr. Chairman. I think it a most unfair, most uncomplimentary remark.

HON. MR. LAUK: He's the Minister of Health and he should know how I feel. (Laughter.)

It may not be possible to get it tomorrow. I'll try.

MR. CHABOT: There's no reason why you can't get it.

HON. MR. LAUK: It may not be possible for me to get it tomorrow.

MR. CHABOT: You've 107 people in your department. There's no reason why you...or 103 or whatever it is....

HON. MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health advises that the Hon. Member for Columbia River should take two aspirins and come back Monday morning.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I know it's 10 o'clock in the morning.

MR. CHABOT: I think the Department of Economic Development goes to work at 8:30 in the morning. Is there any reason why between 8:30 and 10 o'clock it is not possible to secure this information, to see what kind of waste and extravagance has taken place in the purchase of the Molson farm on the recommendations from the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)? He suggested that he was closely involved in all this. He recommended that you pay out $2.3 million for half a block of land that was purchased for $1.3 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't know that.

MR. CHABOT: I think this is worthy of closer examination. This is worthy of the Minister passing the word to his Deputy so that he does it. The Minister doesn't even have to take the time himself of phoning Mr. Horben; he can ask his Deputy; he can ask his Associate Deputy; he can ask his other Associate Deputy; he can ask his executive assistant. I don't know how many he has, but he can ask them. Just make a phone call; tell us what the relevant facts are regarding the purchase of the Molson hop farm. Did we get taken? Did the taxpayers of British Columbia get taken? And if so, by how much? I think there is no reason in the world why that Minister can't come back here tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock with that information.

MR. FRASER: The people of Columbia River sure got taken.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, the people of Columbia River got taken by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) when he established his extravagant...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: ...$250,000 tourist information booth in that community.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: The people of British Columbia got taken on that one, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote?

MR. CHABOT: Waste and extravagance.

Mr. Chairman, I posed a couple of questions to the Minister regarding the joint programme between the

[ Page 1256 ]

national government and the provincial government dealing with rail line extension in the north. I know how proud that government was when it released the great story of development that would take place in northern British Columbia. Oh, these rail links would be going from Clapham Creek to Connection and Telegraph Creek, and you name it. They were going all over the northwest of British Columbia. I might have my names a little bit mixed up there, but those are some of the names in that part of the world.

There was great fanfare. This great development was going to take place; this new transportation bridge that was to be established in the northwest of British Columbia was to bring prosperity and jobs to the people in the north.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Jobs!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think that the assembly is a little giddy. Maybe we should adjourn until tomorrow morning.

Pardon? Yes, I mean it's close to adjournment now.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.