[ Page 1501 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 36.

Mr. Wallace — 1501

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1505

Mr. King — 1506

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1506

Mr. Skelly — 1506

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1509

Mr. Gibson — 1509

Mr. Lauk — 1510

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1513

Mr. D'Arcy — 1515

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1517

Ms. Brown — 1518

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1520

Mr. Levi — 1520

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1521

Mr. Lauk — 1522

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1522

Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 4.

Mrs. Wallace — 1523

Mr. Stupich — 1523

Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 37.

Mr. Lauk — 1523

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1523

Mr. Wallace — 1523

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1523

Mr. Stupich — 1523

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1524

Mr. Lockstead — 1524

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1524

On vote 38.

Mr. Lauk — 1524

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1524

Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 4.

Mr. Wallace — 1524

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1525

Mrs. Wallace — 1525

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1525

Mr. Skelly — 1526

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1526

Mr. Stupich — 1526

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1526

FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have two visitors to watch the proceedings, Mr. Franz Hollenberg from Germany and Mr. Peter Aufdermauer of Switzerland. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery sometime this morning we will have a high school class from Belmont-Fisher in my constituency. They will be accompanied by their teacher, Mary Elford. I'd ask the House to make them welcome please.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Also in the galleries today will be a group of grade 7 students from Ucluelet Elementary School. They have come all the way to watch our proceedings and I'd like the House to make them welcome as well.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to file information relating to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 36: minister's office, $95,304 — continued.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in this debate the important theme is to compare the government's actions with its words.

We have had both the budget speech and the Clarkson Gordon report telling us that what we need is to develop taxation policies which reduce the burden on the individual taxpayer and increase revenue from our natural resources. That seems eminently wise and sound until we look at the situation in British Columbia today.

Without going back on a former vote of the House on the budget, we see that the thrust of the government at this point has been in — fact to increase in many ways taxes on the individual, not the least of which is the 2 per cent sales tax, and we needn't recycle that argument on this particular vote.

I think the principle has been demonstrated very clearly by this government, that it is espousing what appears to be a sound policy of trying to derive more revenue from resources and less from the individual. Yet its very actions and much of the debate that's taken place to this point in this session has been to criticize the government for doing the very opposite of what they claim they believe.

We've had increased taxes of one kind or another: we've had increased rates for hydro, recently the ferry rates have been increased, income tax has been increased, and we have had very little outline of the other side of the argument. In other words, we've had no clear-cut outline of how two of the main sources of revenue from our natural resources are to be dealt with. All we do know is that last year our revenue from the forest industry was $100 million less than expected. We know that the mining industry has been producing much less in revenue than expected, the end of the recession, which was predicted by so many economists, may well have reached the bottom of the trough. There seems to be a very slow rate of recovery, compared to many of the predictions.

We've also heard about the fact that our primary problem in Canada is to fight inflation, and I believe that to be true. While economics and the economic development is a complex matter which, I suppose, the average citizen finds very difficult to understand in any detail, there certainly is one thing the individual does understand: every time he puts his hand in his pocket it costs him more money than it did a little while ago to buy the same service or the same product.

I'd like to talk for just a few minutes from the point of view of the layman and many of the citizens in this province who make this kind of comment to me quite frequently. It's based very much on the Premier's statement yesterday — what seemed to me a very surprising statement — in which he criticized the federal government for not advancing the concept of increasing the price of a barrel of oil fast enough.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the experts keep telling us that it is economically bad to have a two-price system, to have a domestic price and a foreign export price. This whole question of oil and the very fundamental influence on our economy, which is caused by the price of oil, or increases in the price of oil, is certainly very puzzling to the man on the street.

I can well remember in 1974 when I happened to be on holiday in Hawaii at the time of the phony oil shortage in the United States, and there was a literal lining up for hours of individual U.S. automobile operators at the gas pumps, starting at 4, 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. There wasn't just a national but an international panic almost, that somehow or

[ Page 1502 ]

other our oil supplies were at such a critical level if we were, perhaps, unable to afford Venezuelan and Middle East imports. There were some dreadful predictions of disaster, economically, for the North American continent. Then, all of a sudden, the problem didn't seem to be half as bad, and then a little later we don't talk about it at all. While there may be some valid economic and professional explanations of what went on at that time, in the minds of the consumer it's just one great big con game by the oil companies.

To bring the situation closer to home, we now have the province of Alberta, supported by the province of British Columbia, saying that the sooner we can get a Canadian price for a barrel of oil up by at least $2 right now, and maybe another $3 very shortly, to bring it up to the price charged by foreign oil producers....

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I readily confess I'm a layman in this area, but I'm also a taxpayer and a consumer. I thought that in fighting inflation one of our real aims was to remain competitive in exporting products, particularly manufactured goods from eastern Canada to consuming countries. I also thought, just as a layman reading the newspapers and so on, that the cost of oil has so much to do with the basic cost of production that I can't understand how we will be fighting inflation if we rapidly increase the cost of our own oil to our own consumers, our own manufacturing and producing industries, because such an increase in price surely inevitably increases our cost of production, and in no way helps us to be more competitive in foreign markets. That's just a simple observation that I've never really had a simple contradiction to by the experts.

The thing which Premier Bennett seems to believe, and I agree that many other persons believe the same thing, is that since oil is worth $13 a barrel on the international market and we at home are evaluating it at more or less $8 a barrel, we are not getting a realistic value for home-produced oil.

If we are to be efficient economically and compete in foreign markets, surely we could have a two-price system where the home consumer and the home producer get the lower price value of home-produced oil. I should be very careful, I guess, when I talk about home-produced oil, as I might be misunderstood — I mean domestically produced oil. Not only would this, at least in the short run, be some kind of hedge against inflation and the cost of living for the individual Canadian, but it seems to me that since it so intimately affects every aspect of production it would, in fact, enable us to produce goods at a cheaper price and would keep down all these other costs of transportation and home heating and all the various ways in which we use oil and oil products and in which every single citizen is intimately involved in any change in the price.

The conservationist tells us that if oil is worth $13 a barrel on the international market that's what it should be worth in British Columbia or Alberta, and that if we paid more we would conserve more and oil supplies would last longer, or we could predict a reliable supply of oil further down the road. Mr. Chairman, after the tremendous panic in the United States two or three years ago, there was the great outcry that we must conserve our oil supplies, and yet I'm not aware of any statistical study that shows that consumers' behaviour has appreciably changed in the consumption of oil or oil products. I don't see all the big cars off the highway, and I don't see people shivering in their homes because they haven't enough oil or won't pay the price to heat their homes.

The third element in all this, of course, is the fact that just five or six years ago our national government was predicting that we had oil supplies which would give us self-sufficiency for 20 or 25 years. Now, all of a sudden, we are told that the figures that were projected at that time have proved to be inaccurate and that the rate at which we are finding new oil supplies is much less than had been predicted.

The Canadian man-in-the-street who diligently watches the Canadian hockey games and the Stanley Cup sees Imperial Oil spending many, many advertising dollars reminding us what a terrible time the oil companies are having in the face of government interference and price controls and many other restrictions, and telling us how expensive it is to explore for new sources of oil — and that's true. I'm not denying that it is expensive to explore in the Beaufort Sea or whichever location they happen to be discussing, but in the light of all this the average Canadian in the street doesn't see the oil companies going on welfare, exactly. The explanation for wanting to put the price of oil up another $2 a barrel is that the oil companies need more money to finance exploration in the north. In theory this sounds very reasonable, but I think if you talk to 99 out of 100 Canadians they are not satisfied that the accountability of the oil companies justified the penalty and the inflationary consequences right now of jacking up the price of a barrel or oil by another $2.

I have yet to read of a reasonable, simple explanation as to the terrible evils of the two-price system, which so many economists and experts almost unanimously seem to believe in. The feeling is that we just cannot have a two-price system for oil.

Not too long ago one of the World Bank people — I think it was McNamara — talked about food power instead of oil power and the fact, for example, that Canada exports millions of bushels of wheat to China, to take that just as a simple specific. Mr. Chairman, if a two-price system in oil is such a tragedy or is so bad for this country or this province, how is it that it's so easy to have a two-price system for food? We're glad

[ Page 1503 ]

to sell wheat to China or Russia for any price we can get.

So, Mr. Chairman, without beating this argument to death, there are so many conflicting and confusing aspects to it that I wonder if the minister could, perhaps sometime during the debate this morning, comment at least briefly on what I thought was a very fundamental definition of this government's position by the Premier's statement in Ottawa yesterday. It's an aspect of our economic development which had not previously been mentioned at any length in this Legislature during debates on the budget, for example, although the whole question of inflation was debated at great length, as indeed it should be.

I wonder if we could be told by the minister today what economic and statistical studies have been done in the very recent past to determine the impact on B.C.'s economy if the price of oil is increased, as it may well be, by $2 a barrel following the present conference in Ottawa. It is quite obvious from the statements of the national minister, Mr. Gillespie, and of Prime Minister Trudeau in the recent past that they do indeed seem to be willing to accept the Alberta request to raise the price.

All I know is that despite all the more abstruse or highly complex economic arguments, you should ask the man in the street in British Columbia what he thinks about jacking up our own oil another $2 a barrel at a time when he or she is being hammered from every direction by increased costs, increased provincial government taxation and a host of other economic problems.

It just seems to me that we're running in opposite directions at the same time. We've built up an enormous federal bureaucracy, almost inevitably, in order to implement anti-inflation measures. We have provincial governments saying that they generally support the anti-inflation measures of the federal government which in a variety of essential commodities try to control price and wage increases and dividend increases. Yet on the other hand we have both national and provincial governments at least appearing to contradict themselves by eagerly trying to increase the price of a barrel of oil, which is so fundamental to just about everything that the individual does, from getting his car from home to work to heating his home, and fundamental to many of the other byproducts of the oil industry too.

I was disappointed particularly in part of the Premier's statement, because it sounded very much like: "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Part of the statement, if he's reported correctly — and I quote from the Vancouver Sun of last evening — is as follows: "Premier Bennett said that B.C. is pushing for a sharp boost, even though the province relies on imported oil, because it is in the long-term interest of resource-rich provinces such as B.C. to be free from federal interference." He goes on to talk about the "the tremendous plans we have in the making for the extraction of coal in British Columbia." I just have to ask the question: how much is Premier Bennett a federalist and how much is he an isolationist? Are we supporting Alberta at a time when Alberta's trying to get more bucks for oil because we want Alberta's support later on to get more bucks for our coal? Just what a very delightful isolationist argument that is.

We've had statements from this government and from this Premier in its early days that the days of the empty chair at the conferences in Ottawa are over — that this Premier and this government believe in the strongest terms that we have a confederation of provinces and that that's what we believe in and that's what we'll support. But, Mr. Chairman, in a confederation of states or provinces some are at a much disadvantaged position. In this particular argument we have to think of the Maritime provinces. When the "oil crisis" hits North America, the national government, with the cooperation of the provincial governments, agreed that there should be some subsidy, at least on a temporary basis, to the individual oil consumer in the Maritime provinces, but this kind of statement from the Premier suggests that we're rich in coal and that British Columbia is entitled to get every last nickel of revenue out of that coal, which is completely devoid of any responsibility to what the federal government might feel is its responsibility in deriving federal revenue from our provincial resources.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this could get into a long argument about the BNA Act and who said what about the ownership of resources. This in turn leads to the great concern that the federal government will patriate the constitution on its own and might even try and amend it on its own. So I'm not unaware that this is a pretty far-reaching and dangerous situation when we have an argument between federal and provincial levels as to what can be done with provincial resources and how taxation should be applied.

But if the Premier of this province thinks that he can go and play footsie with Alberta about the price of oil right now because he hopes they'll play footsie with us when we're all ready to sell a lot of coal, I think that that is rather a parochial and isolationist approach which really, again, in words contradicts the expoused philosophy of this government, that we very much believe in Canadian Confederation and that provinces that are rich in resources should not simply expect to develop them to the greatest financial benefit to that province without consideration on a sharing basis with the other provinces.

I am not overlooking the fact that there is a system of so-called equalization grants and that that is all up for renegotiation by 1977. We've touched on

[ Page 1504 ]

this question of equalization grants and cost-sharing programmes and hospital costs and many other areas in the last several weeks in this House. But if this province is to diversify its economy and develop different types of jobs and be less dependent on one or two basic primary industries.... It really puzzles me how we can do that by pressing right now to increase the cost of one of the basic commodities that makes industry tick. It's a question, Mr. Chairman, which I think the minister should at least touch upon sometime during the debate today because I would very confidently believe that 99 out of 100 British Columbians read the paper last night and said: "My God! We're just trying to cope with increases in our cost of living in five different directions in the last few weeks since the provincial budget. Now we find the Premier of this province, who says he is fighting inflation, wants to put up the cost of this basic commodity, oil, by another $2 a barrel. It's Canadian oil to start with!"

We've accused Venezuela and the Middle East countries of putting a gun to our heads on the price of imported oil, but apparently there is some strong thinking in this country that we should just gradually follow the example set by these other countries.

The other subject that I want to touch upon briefly.... How long have I got to go, Mr. Chairman? Do you know how many minutes...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll give you the warning in two minutes.

MR. WALLACE: The other industry that is so important to British Columbia is the forest industry. Although we've quite correctly expressed deep concern about a loss in revenue last year from the forest industry, there is nothing in the budget specifically and there has been nothing stated by this minister as to any initiatives that the government is planning to attempt to improve the financial situation or the revenue to be derived from the forest industry.

The Council of Forest Industries, which is a voice which speaks with a great deal of knowledge and experience; has just submitted a brief to the federal government and the Minister of Finance hoping that he will pay some attention to their views when he is preparing the budget, which is to be brought down shortly. But one of the disturbing points that was made by the retiring president of the Council of Forest Industries at their recent annual convention was that there is anti-Canadian sentiment in the United States, which has a very negative effect on the prospects of selling more lumber south of the border.

I wonder if the minister would agree that that is a factor, or is it simply the slump in the economy and the drop in housing starts in the United States. Regardless of these particular factors, what is the government planning to do in an attempt to revive the forest industry and bring about recovery in the kind of revenue which this government can expect in keeping with its commitment to get more money from the resources and less from individuals?

I suppose we have to acknowledge that the Pearse commission has been investigating the forest industry in great detail. I understand the report should be due within the next month or two. But I don't think that that in itself should be given as an excuse to delay some comment on how our economic development will be enhanced by some initiatives taken in the forest industry. I read time and time again that despite the good intentions of the environmentalists, the cost of logging to the logging companies has been substantially increased with tougher logging guidelines and the amount of money that has to be spent leaving the site cleared to a certain standard, and many of the other technical factors that 1, as a layman, do not understand. But the cost of logging the trees, in relation to the financial return in the forest industry, has apparently led to problems, both in meeting these costs and, consequently, in producing less return to the investor so that the forest industry has become a less attractive form of investment.

I don't know how often we hear in this House, and at the national level, what a terrible thing it is to have so much foreign investment in Canada. Again, all I can ask as a layman is if we didn't have the foreign investment, have we enough Canadians with enough guts and confidence to put their dollars into many of the industries which depend so intimately on capital investment?

One of the main themes of the brief submitted by the Council of Forest Industries to the federal government is to revise tax — laws which will help industry to obtain capital for capital development and expansion. I know, and the minister agrees with me — and I am talking at the moment about federal initiatives which could be taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have just a little lower noise level in the room so the minister can understand the debate?

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just about to finish my comments.

What can we do or what are we planning to do at the provincial level to change the taxation structure on the forest industry to increase capital investment and, hopefully, to make it a more efficient and a more productive industry?

The other point made by the brief is the vital importance of productivity. It mentions that with the labour strife and the labour costs we have, particularly in British Columbia, that again is a factor which limits the capacity of the taxation legislation to be effective, If there are long shutdowns in the

[ Page 1505 ]

industry with expensive equipment with large carrying charges just sitting idle, then obviously productivity is severely affected. The last point they make in the brief — and in this respect I would agree that the government is trying to cut its own costs and decrease the size of government — is the staggering situation at the federal level, that between 1952 and 1975 the government share of the gross national product has gone from 27 per cent to 42 per cent. So at the federal level we've got the federal government taking almost half of each dollar of the gross national product. One of the reasons for that is the immense growth in the size of government and the government waste in spending.

So if I have to stud my comments with severe criticism of the provincial government for taxing people instead of resources, I have at least to end up by agreeing that this government is on the right track in trying to limit its own spending and its own size so that the government expenditure of the gross provincial product, hopefully, as a percentage is declining.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond briefly to some of the comments made by the member for Oak Bay. I don't wish to get into a lengthy philosophical dissertation on the price of oil, but I do want to point out — and I've felt this and I think I've stated it publicly before — that had the oil been in the province of Ontario or Quebec, and the federal government made its moves, maybe they might have taken an entirely different attitude.

I also feel very strongly, on the overall picture, that had governments stayed out of the regulation of our petroleum industry way back starting in the United States, we would have had an abundant supply of oil today and the price would have been far less than it is today. I may be accused of sticking up for the multinational corporation — and I really don't care what I am accused of. But it's the regulation and manipulation by governments into that field that have really caused, first of all, the artificial shortage, which was not caused by the oil companies, have slowed the search for new petroleum products — and you can go on the syndrome that we are going to run out. Well, maybe some day we are going to run out, but every time we get to the verge of running out, we always seem to find a new source. I don't know if that's planned by the oil companies or whether it's planned by the government. As I say, we could get into a very lengthy discussion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We had the situation here in the province of British Columbia where the government was going to go in and do all sorts of things. What did they do? They drove the oil companies out of British Columbia so that we didn't continue with our search and find, which is the real nuts and bolts of the oil industry and, as a matter of fact, of any natural resource other than our trees and our water which we can readily see. But minerals, the whole deal.... As I say, I don't want to get into any lengthy discussion. But the real nuts and bolts is the old supply-demand situation. The real problem with our energies is to find new sources.

If anybody had said 12 years ago that we were going to find oil on the north slope, or gas in the Mackenzie delta.... I remember arguing back in 1966, when we first went into the Arctic, and I said: "Well, you're crazy! Why don't you search in the areas that are cheaper, because you can't get it out anyway?" But I, at that time, happened to be wrong. We found that that will be a bountiful supply for us at a later date.

Last year I was reading where in Louisiana an independent drilling company went in and found a huge gas field, and all the majors had gone over it. But they need that risk capital, and they also must have their return. We have supplies in our own Grizzly Valley that have been sitting there. Oil companies have spent millions and millions of dollars in the search, but it sits there, and there will be no further search until such time as there is some return on that investment. So I realize you also can use the argument that if we're really going to conserve our energy, then the higher the price tag we put on it, the more conservation there will be. There are all kinds of arguments, but the real crux of the situation is that it's costing oil companies more today to search in the high Arctic to find their oil, and particularly in British Columbia it's about the same price level, I'm told, for searching. We're having to bring it farther, it's costing a lot more to search for, it's costing a lot more to drill, the price of labour is high, the price of getting in there is higher. The real crux has got to be that you've got to have that return.

Maybe today, by putting up the price of oil to the level of the world market — which is really what we have to look at; I think we've had too many shortsighted policies on behalf of governments — in the long run it will probably be to the best benefit of the western Canada oil industry.

MR. WALLACE: What about, the immediate impact of two bucks right now on the cost of living?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The immediate impact of two bucks, I'm told.... At any rate, the federal government is going to increase the price of gasoline by 10 cents this year, in July. That announcement has been stated. Yes, it's going to have an impact on our cost of living and on the cost of producing our merchandise. But maybe that impact that it's going to

[ Page 1506 ]

have now is going to be relatively small compared to the long term, and it's the long term we have to look at for future generations and the supply. Because I want to tell you that if we run out and do not search for new fields and new supplies, then the impact will be far greater than the temporary impact we're going to experience today. That's really what we have to look at.

As I say, it's to find — the old case of supply and demand. But I- want to tell you, it's always easy to take these multinational companies as whipping boys — and they are multinational; they're big — and you can say there's no competition. They're always a good whipping boy, but it was not the multinational corporations that were responsible for the price we're paying for gasoline today. It just so happens that it was government interference. And there's a difference of philosophy, and I understand that, but it's the long-range view that we must take in that regard.

You were talking about foreign investment, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member. Well, last night — I don't think you were in the House — I did explain one of the problems we have with industry in British Columbia and, indeed, in all Canada. That is that the governments seem to siphon off the majority of the money so that companies don't have that cash available to develop new plants and to develop the new technology which we are going to have to have, particularly in western Canada. The industries in central Canada are established. Their plants are built, and they can carry on because they're not faced with the high cost of construction. They're faced with the same high cost of technology improvement, but they have their plants — they're in place — and they're not faced with the high costs we are here in British Columbia.

It's the same with providing our infrastructure, and I went into this last night, if you'd care to read it in Hansard. With regard to the lumber industry, there can be new technology brought into the lumber industry, and I don't know what our taxation policy is going to be. As you know we're waiting for the Pearse report. But I do want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, that all departments of this government are working together to formulate policies. It is not a case of isolation, with the department of forestry going out and making isolated decisions with regard to forestry policy or with regard to economic development. We won't see various departments running off in their own direction, which has been the case in the past.

We're trying to work together so that all departments have an impact on the economic development of this province. As I stated last night in your absence, that's why we haven't finished our policy paper yet. We're not complete; we're still doing some research on it to find the parameters. We don't want to just come out and say, "Well, it's going to be this," until we really do some research on it.

I do want to assure the member that all departments of this government are working together. All of the revenue-producing departments are working together to formulate policies which will be good. Some of them may seem tough for the immediate future. That's the risk we have to take. We have to bite that bullet.

We are looking at the long-term policies that will help the whole province. As I said last night, the children who are in school are entitled to enter a strong economy, the same one that we have enjoyed for the past 20 years. I think they are entitled to that and we must see they have that, as well as taking care of the environment and other aspects.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Just one short question to the Minister of Economic Development: could the minister tell me whether or not there is any programme within the Department of Economic Development for the employment of students this year — either university or high school students? I would appreciate knowing whether there is a programme and how many students may be hired in that department.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the past Minister of Labour seems to be very, very concerned about this summer-work programme. I certainly am not going to get into a lengthy debate on it, but this department doesn't hire that many people. I understand we have about 10 that we will be hiring, but we do not have an extensive programme, and I don't think we have ever had in the past.

MR. KING: I'm not looking for debate, just an answer. Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm just very interested in the curiosity that the ex-Minister of Labour has for this particular programme. I'm looking forward to maybe some debate during the Minister of Labour's estimates.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I really couldn't believe the Minister of Economic Development's statements on the need for higher returns for oil in order to encourage the oil companies to explore in those — difficult areas of the north. It sounds like he's been sucked in by the propaganda of the oil companies, that they require exorbitant profits in order to take part in exploration in the northern areas of the world and in very difficult areas of the world.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Like hook, line and sinker.

[ Page 1507 ]

MR. SKELLY: But the fact is that they've not been using the money for that purpose. They've been using the money to acquire control over other energy sources — to corner the market on things like coal and to even corner the market on things like geothermal energy in California. They haven't been exploring that much for oil at all, and their profits haven't been used that much for oil exploration.

There was an announcement in the paper recently that the Mobil Oil Co., using their increased profits, was taking over the Marcore corporation — not exactly an energy company, Mr. Minister; Marcore owns Montgomery Ward, the great retail sales organization in the States. Not a single new job was created as a result of that increase in oil profits. They simply moved in to corner the market on a retail industry in the United States by taking over the Montgomery Ward corporation.

So if the member says that increases in profits are required, or increase in oil prices are required to allow those huge oil companies to increase their exploration, I think he's been sucked in by the propaganda of those companies. All they're doing is diversifying their industry, concentrating their economic control over the world.

I don't know if the member reads Fortune magazine or not, but within the last few years, even during the period of so-called oil shortage and energy shortage, Exxon corporation, which was one of maybe the top 10 corporations on the Fortune list of 500, moved up to No. 1 during a period of economic shortage. Their profits increased so drastically that they now exceed General Motors as the largest corporation in the world, in terms of sales and profits.

At least the former B.C. government insisted that money gleaned from increase in gas prices would be returned to the gas companies in the form of exploration credits, that the work the gas companies did in the form of exploration would be returned to them by the government in the form of credits rather than simply allowing them the increase in price to spend on mergers and agglomerations or to take over other industries.

So I think that minister really has been sucked in by the propaganda of the oil companies. I hope he doesn't expect a group like this to believe that type of propaganda.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): He used to stick his tongue on a steel fence in the winter. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Really, Mr. Chairman, the main point of what I was going to say today has to do with the minister's avowed pursuit of federal moneys. Last night he said that he had found a little blue book in his office, one of the last remaining things in his office, that told him a little bit about the access to the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion funds, and I'd like to pursue this just for a few minutes.

I have some brief comments to make to the minister, relating to the problems experienced in communities in my riding — the communities of Tofino, Ucluelet and Bamfield on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The total population of these communities is about 2,000 people.

As a result of the creation of Pacific Rim National Park.... Back in 1966 the member will probably recall that the previous Social Credit government entered into an agreement between the federal government and the provincial government to set up the west coast national park which was later renamed the Pacific Rim Park. As the result of a tremendous influx of tourists as a result of the creation of that park there has been a tremendous pressure on local services in those small communities of Tofino, Ucluelet and Bamfield, a tremendous impact on the infrastructure, sewer, water, solid waste disposal, this type of thing.

Now the former Social Credit government had promised to do an economic study of the area. They didn't deliver that promise, one of the many promises they didn't deliver. But under the previous Minister of Economic Development we did provide funds for that study through the Department of Travel Industry, through the Department of Economic Development, and through the local regional district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SKELLY: The Canadian government office of travel also participated. The report was done by A.V. Gray Management Science Ltd. The figures projected for increase in tourism between 1971 and 1981 were as follows. They recorded 100,000 people per year visiting that area in 1971. It was expected to increase to approximately 400,000 by 1981 and 800,000 by 1991. That's into an area where the total population of those communities is approximately 2,000. We can anticipate an increase in visitors to 800,000 into a city that has a present population of 2,000 in community total.

The Pacific Rim National Park figures, which are not very accurate because they record local traffic, indicate that in 1973 total vehicles passing through the park were 405,000 carrying an estimated 1.2 million people; in 1974 total vehicles 423,000, carrying 1.26 million people; in 1975, 396,000 vehicles carrying 1.179 million people. So there is a tremendous impact from tourism on that very sparsely populated area.

There is a real problem experienced by these small communities in providing for that great influx of tourists during the period of, say, 60 to 90 days

[ Page 1508 ]

during each summer. Of course, these statistics don't take into account the fact of the Social Credit government attempts to scuttle the Marguerite. They don't take into effect the increase in ferry rates. Doubling the ferry rates should cut down the tourism in that area a fair amount and decrease the amount of money the tourists will be spending in that area. They don't take into account other factors like the exorbitant increase in car insurance rates and other factors which will affect the number of visitors to that area. So many factors have intervened that will change the projected figures in the A.V. Gray report, but still the impact on the area is going to be dramatic. I'm wondering just what the minister plans to do to assist these communities in relieving the impact of tourism over the next years between 1976 and 1991.

Just to give you an example of the impact on water distribution, between 1975 and 1991 the demand on water services is expected to increase by about 300 per cent. Need for sewage disposal is expected to double. The Gray report estimated that capital expenditures on water, sewer systems, solid waste disposal, roads, other infrastructure developments, are expected to cost in the neighbourhood of $15 million. This is for — remember, Mr. Minister — for an area that has a population of 2,000 people and a very small assessment. They aren't able to raise the amount of taxes required to pay for that infrastructure development that is needed as a result of the creation by the previous Social Credit government of Pacific Rim National Park.

In addition to the $15 million capital development required there's something like $300,000 to $1.2 million in recurring annual expenditure to maintain this infrastructure development. Certainly the 2,000 taxpayers of the west coast communities can't be expected to pay that amount.

Part of these costs were due to increase in those communities as a result of the growth of the tourist industry, but as time goes on the vast majority of demand on infrastructure is going to be related to the tourist industry itself and demands on water, sewer systems, roads et cetera by tourists during a 60- to 90-day period each year. So the minister will realize that it is impossible for small communities like Tofino and Ucluelet to pay for the tremendous cost of those services.

Under the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk), we were investigating with the local government, with the National Parks branch and with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion a DREE subagreement to cover that area and to provide some of the basic infrastructure services.

I'd just like to read some memos between Mr. Meredith of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Mr. Peel. This is from a letter of February 3, 1975:

"Further action would consider the desirability and possibility of establishing a DREE subagreement in the Tofino-Clayoquot area. Pre-feasibility engineering studies would be a desirable prerequisite. These matters are now receiving attention at the deputy minister level."

[Mr. Lauk in the chair.]

Also, in March, 1975, a letter again from Mr. Meredith, department economist to Mr. Asher, secretary-treasurer of the regional district.

"There are no regional assistance programmes in operation at this time which are applicable to your request. However, we are presently investigating and developing federal-provincial regional development subagreements which in the future will be implemented under the general development agreement. In particular we are placing considerable emphasis on programmes which address community infrastructural requirements. Discussions with DREE with respect to the scope and possible means of implementation of various assistance programmes are underway."

Under the New Democratic Party those investigations were being carried on; those discussions with the federal government were being carried on. The Department of Travel Industry was involved; the minister's department was involved. The federal and local authorities and the National Parks branch had formed a commission. I'm wondering just in view of the minister's statement that he is actively going to pursue Department of Regional Economic Expansion funds for infrastructure development just what he intends to do and what the progress has been in the Tofino-Ucluelet area where those infrastructure funds are so desperately required.

There have been programmes in Fort Nelson in the minister's area where....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not mine.

MR. SKELLY: In the general area, where DREE moneys and Economic Development moneys have been used to improve water systems, I'm wondering if the minister is willing to expand those types of programmes to the west coast where they are desperately needed — needed at least as much as they are in the northern part of the province.

So in view of the minister's promise that he is going to actively pursue those federal funds — federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion funds — I wonder what he is doing to assist the

[ Page 1509 ]

Tofino-Ucluelet area at the present time. When can we expect the subagreement between the federal government and the provincial government to cover that area? When can we expect to see some infrastructure development take place in the Tofino-Ucluelet area?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would be most happy to respond to the member's comments. I'm glad to see that it's a problem now. I don't know why, Mr. Chairman, you didn't do something about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I do want to say that yes, the DREE programme is all right with this government. The DREE programme is all right with the federal DREE people. But we are getting no cooperation whatsoever from Parks Canada. Now we are not going to stop there. We'll pursue this with all vigour because we realize the problem there.

I don't want to be vindictive or anything but I just have to think that it's another case of Ottawa sort of..."Well, it's away out there on the west coast and they won't bother us too much." If this were some other area in Canada — they've done it in other areas in Canada — I'm sure that we would be moving fairly swiftly to do it. We have to pursue this with a great deal of vigour. We have to deal with the federal authorities and make them stand up and live up to their responsibilities.

I can't tell you exactly, Mr. Member, through the Chairman to you. I'd love to say: "Yes, in two months we'll have a DREE agreement and we will be moving in...." I can't tell you that and you know I can't tell you that, as much as I'd like to. But I do say that it is on our list of DREE priorities. We will be pursuing it; we will be pursuing it with vigour because we realize the problem. We realize the problem was there for the last three and a half years. I maybe shouldn't say that. I'll sit down now.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: Really, I think this is something that the minister should take a little more seriously. The last government did pursue the problem. They did meet with local authorities; they did meet with the federal government.

It is unfortunate that under the National Parks statutes they are not entitled to spend money outside of park boundaries. It's a matter of some concern to the people in the Tofino-Ucluelet area when they see $3 million and $4 million a year being spent within the National Park boundaries eliminating campsites, eliminating recreational opportunities that previously existed in that area, and yet not a nickel is being spent on infrastructure development outside of park boundaries.

I personally think it was a mistake on the part of the previous government to get involved in that national park agreement. It was a giveaway. We had to pay 50 per cent of the acquisition costs of the land out there, and yet the federal government won't spend a nickel outside of the park boundary. So I don't think we can wait until the federal government is going to change their statutes allowing them to spend money for park purposes outside the park boundaries, and I don't think it's desirable anyway.

I am not asking the minister if the water system is going to be constructed next year. It was needed last year, But I would like some assurance that he's going to pursue this with the vigour that he's talking about, because it is important. I mentioned that 100,000 people visited that area in 1971, and there's a population of 2,000 out there. We've got a very small hospital that can't even hope to accommodate some of the emergencies that develop in the park when tourists are injured out there. We've got a water system in Tofino that's shut down. Overnight they have to shut down the water system. They have a fish plant and a fishing economy out there. It will cost a quarter of a million dollars to put a water system into a town where the population is 600. We need urgent assistance from the minister to pursue DREE money for that area.

I am hoping that possibly I can get in touch with the minister after his estimates are over so we can have a meeting in his office, as we used to with the previous minister. I hope that we can meet more frequently than you do with the farmers....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Come on up. The door's open.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I intend to follow up on that offer. I intend to be up in your office as soon as possible after your estimates are over and I hope we can get something solved with the federal government within the first year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Aye.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I have only a very brief plea to make at this time. It's an annual plea on behalf of the statistical and economic analysis part of the minister's department. If I look at the estimate detail properly I think I see an increase in that section for this year. I'm just mentioning to the minister now that when we get to that specific vote I would very much appreciate his being in possession of the exact details on how the statistical branch is proceeding.

[ Page 1510 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to bring to the attention of the committee, as I am sure we are all aware, that the minister's deputy minister is here and welcome him. He is an excellent deputy minister.

I hope that doesn't destroy his career. (Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It did yours.

MR. LAUK: Don't attack civil servants, Madam.

Mr. Chairman, I was also pleased to see that the minister promoted Dr. Rae, who is another excellent public servant, and I am sure that the advice that the minister receives from these first-class individuals will be well received and acted upon. If the minister listens to that advice exclusively he'll be all right, but once in a while he stands in the House and he gives us his philosophy, and that's when he starts to fumble. If he only listened to the excellent advice of his civil servants, he wouldn't make many mistakes. But we can't rely on that and, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the minister will make many mistakes.

I noticed in a publication some months ago when a reporter was inquiring of the new cabinet — the coalition cabinet — what kind of reading material they enjoyed, the minister said: "Well, I read the Bank Credit Analyst." I suppose if one can describe the Bank Credit Analyst for its interest value, it would be sort of like a Presbyterian publication: very dry and gray; very good, though, very excellent.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend any Presbyterians by saying that it didn't have any colour.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Bank Credit Analyst that he was reading — because I followed that very carefully....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Unexpurgated?

MR. LAUK: Unexpurgated. One edition only. Not like the budget speech. It predicted a worldwide depression lasting for upwards of 20 years. Now if the hon. minister is that impressed with the BCA's predictions....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the minister said he was impressed with this publication, and I had heard through my spies that he did indeed read it, because they passed his office one day and the, light was shining on him as he was reading this publication and his lips were moving. Four hours later, he got through the 10 pages. He had his dictionary beside him.

Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to be rude to the hon. minister, but if he accepts that kind of depression mentality, what he has also indicated here to the committee this morning is that he accepts another kind of mentality that assists depressions — that not only does not guard against them, but ushers them in. He talks about the need for oil companies to have vast amounts of profits because only in that way can the little people — I'm assuming this is what he means — enjoy some of the wealth of the jobs that are created and the tax revenue that eventually will come out of the personal pockets, the personal income taxes of the province and of the country. This was the philosophy of an administration that ushered in the last Depression, R.B. Bennett; evidence has indicated in our historical texts today that he was the most right-wing politician ever to lead a national government. He was against taxing the large corporations and the multinationals, he said, because that would only lead to a further worsening of the Depression. And they did; they alleviated the tax situation for large companies, and the Depression carried on and the little people suffered more. It didn't work then; it's not going to work now.

I think that a system of tax credits and incentives for specific exploration purposes may be intelligent and it may work, but not a wholesale sellout to the multinational oil companies. As Tommy Douglas explained to Mr. Gillespie in the federal house, he said: "What are you going to do about this situation? What about the public ownership of gas and oil in Canada?" Gillespie said: "The hon. member doesn't realize that it takes a lot of luck and a lot of investment to find oil and gas." Tommy Douglas said: "Well, what are you running, a government or a lottery?" Gillespie replied: "Oh, the hon. member doesn't understand. You don't just sink a hole in the ground and get oil and gas." Then Tommy Douglas stood up and said: "Well, I know that the oil companies don't sink. They sink lots of holes to try and find oil and gas, but they also put out lines for suckers, and they seem to have got one in the hon. minister." (Laughter.)

MR. KING: I think he bit, Gary.

MR. LAUK: What about conservation? You know, the evidence stacks up against the multinational oil companies in terms of manipulating oil supply and oil consumption. The source is finite, Mr. Minister.... Oh, there he goes. (Laughter.) Whenever I get close, he rushes off. Well, perhaps the deputy minister can make a few notes, because I'll get on to some serious matters now that he's left and he maybe can reply, through you, Mr. Deputy Minister. (Laughter.)

I wanted to talk just a moment about the railway. If you get a map outlining the coal supplies or the coal deposits that are probable and expected in

[ Page 1511 ]

reserve in this province and in Alberta, one of the most striking things on that map is the corridor of coal deposits going down the Monkman Pass towards the Alberta border, I think somewhere near Gregg River. That's one of the maps I didn't have in my basement when I looked in it the other day. It connects at a point, Mr. Chairman, remarkably enough, at which we can see the Alberta resource railway touching the border of British Columbia. I think that it would be wise indeed for this government and this minister to immediately instruct the BCR to survey a line down the Monkman Pass that will eventually service all of those coal deposits and connect up with the Alberta resource railway. This was raised in discussion with Alberta cabinet ministers in the past. They were receptive.

The minister is now back in the House.

MR. KING: He's skulking back. I thought he'd peeled.

MR. LAUK: I just mentioned, Mr. Minister, the idea that you look at a map of British Columbia where all of the coal deposits are marked out. It's one of the maps I didn't take with me; it's with you. You have a look at it. If you look at the coal deposits on the Alberta side, you can draw your finger down the Monkman Pass, or near there, right down to the Alberta border.

If a BCR line were built down that pass to connect up with the Alberta resource railway....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You said that last night.

MR. LAUK: I want to repeat it again because you didn't say anything about it. I want to ask the minister whether he's committed to the idea and what he's going to do about it. I would suggest that he immediately instruct BCR surveyors to go in there and survey that line and immediately set up a continuous series of discussions with the Alberta government so that that line will connect up to the

Alberta resource railway. That way, you can serve the great coal deposits of both provinces, east and west, giving you a competitive advantage over the CNR and the CPR, a bargaining point for railcars for the BCR, for freight rates, for the Ashcroft-Clinton line — all of those things. I ask the minister to comment on that.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. The other point that I wish to ask the minister on, as soon as I get his attention, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm listening.

MR. LAUK: Oh, good. It's Hat Creek coal. One of the studies that were embarked upon under the NDP administration was an analysis of the Hat Creek coal deposit with respect not only to its thermal value for the production of electricity, but also the aluminum that could be obtained from the fly ash. There were initial discussions with Reynolds and Alcan Aluminum under the NDP administration and there was going to be a study as to the economic viability of using the aluminum from the fly ash at Hat Creek instead of bauxite in aluminum plants within the province. That would lead, hopefully, to an aluminum rolling mill, a secondary phase of aluminum manufacture in the province. I hope the minister is still continuing that programme embarked upon under my administration.

The third question I would like to ask is that I was discussing with NKK and Kaiser and other coal producers and buyers the idea of private industry and government — two levels, the federal and provincial — contributing to a coal institute of advanced studies and technology in the use of coal. This has been a little pet project of mine, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister continues on with it. A coal institute is a great idea. It may make British Columbia the capital of the world as far as coal use is concerned, bringing all kinds of scientists from Germany and Japan and so on, and studying the use of coal: thermal purposes, gasification, petro-chemical, all kinds of possibilities there.

While the minister is thinking up an answer to that one, would he tell me where that $5 million for the study of the northeast coal project is? I can't find it in his estimates. Could he give me a breakdown? Because I have to ask some minister. It was mentioned in your statement to Bob McMurray. I think it's an excellent idea, but I would like to know where that breaks down and where the money is coming from, and who's doing what to whom.

The fourth question is a more serious one. I'm sorry that the Minister of Mines, forests, water resources and advertising is not in the House today because there seems to be a tremendous conflict in policy between the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Mines. He's talking about eliminating royalties, that it's discouraging mining, and it's a negative type of impact, a negative tax, and that it loses jobs, and the rest of the treadmill of trivia that we've heard since the election and during.

On the other hand, we see the Minister of Economic Development in the newspaper the other day talking to Bob McMurray. I don't like to quote this article too often but it's the only one. The Minister doesn't talk much but then again neither did Cardinal Richelieu. It said in the back, he says: "While the policy has yet to be developed on how much coal royalties will be, the government is considering a user fee to be paid by mining companies to pay for townsites and their amenities, which would be established by government." Well, I couldn't agree more. I support that concept or a concept of

[ Page 1512 ]

increased royalties — either way — to pay for the tremendous infrastructures of costs that are going to be required to eventually produce and develop the coal resource in the northeast of the province.

To argue in favour of eliminating the royalty, let alone increasing it at this stage, is a negation of the concept that the minister put forward in the press. Now I wonder if you can talk to that young minister. You're the power behind the throne. You're the eminence grise. You're the person that pulls the in strings. Take that young minister aside, get his mind off advertising for a moment, and talk to him about mineral royalties and user fees. You and I both know, being men of the world, that you can't build the hospitals, the schools, provide the transportation and the water systems and sewerage and so on, and recreational facilities, without money. Tell the Minister of Mines that money doesn't grow on trees. He may think that a thousand dollars is just peanuts but we're not talking about just a thousand dollars on an advertising campaign. We're talking about millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, with respect to infrastructure costs.

You know, the resource companies can afford to pay their fair share of that cost. I'm delighted that the minister is discussing the concept of a user fee. I hope it's not just a token gesture, not just a payoff or a lip service to this concept. Make them pay their fair share of costs, because there are resources, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister; there are resources.

Just look, for example to Kaiser Resources. In 1969 Kaiser Resources signed a $1 billion deal with the Japanese steel interests to export our coal from the Kootenay region. Kaiser was originally to sell the coal to them at $12.85 per ton. By July 1972, this price had increased to $16.88 per ton. They are now getting $52 per ton and shipped 1,207,000 tons in the first quarter of 1976.

In the last two years of the Social Credit government, 1971 and 1972, the total royalty collected on coal was $237,000 — that would not even pay for the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Waterland's) advertising campaign.

In the three NDP years, 1973, 1974 and 1975, the total royalty and land tax collection on coal was $13,482,931.27 — not bad, $13.4 million. The coal royalty in 1972 was 25 cents per ton. The NDP raised it to $1.50, and we had announced we would be increasing it to $2.50 a ton — if we had been returned to government. The present rate of export is approximately 4 million tons a year; this would net the government $10 million this year for royalty alone, at $2.50 per ton. We start to make inroads on that infrastructure cost, Mr. Chairman.

Kaiser Resources Ltd. in 1975 almost tripled its profit; in 1974 the net profit was $24.1 million; in 1975 its net profit was $71.2 million. That's net profit! That staggers the mind, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boggles.

MR. LAUK: It boggles the mind, Mr. Chairman — $71.2 million. In the first quarter of 1976 Kaiser's profits increased 55 per cent over the first quarter of 1975. In the face of these facts all you hear from the coalition government is talk of more concessions to the mining companies, and supported by the coalition government's advertising campaign.

The Premier says that coal development will be a basis for the next economic boom in B.C. He said that in the Vancouver Sun on February 28, 1976. That's what he said — that it'll be the next economic boom, and that royalties on coal must be increased to ensure that the public, not the mining companies, will be the main beneficiaries of this boom.

It's clear from that little bit of research I did in the morning that the resource companies of this province can support the infrastructure costs in the northeast. I hope the minister, as the member for South Peace River, doesn't go to Dawson Creek and say to them that they are going to pay the cost, or go to Chetwynd and say to them that they are going to pay the cost, and that small population will be burdened once again with land taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, increased medicare costs and ICBC rates. Don't, don't do that, Mr. Member, because, finally, you may be turfed out of your seat by the good people of Dawson Creek.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes! The minister says I should be so lucky. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Why was the deputy pounding his desk? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I think you will get the support of the opposition parties with respect to this coal development — wholehearted and sincere support, because we are British Columbians first; we play political politics second.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: I know the concept of being a British Columbian is a rather novel idea for the coalition government. There's the member for Maui, there's the member for Alberta and there's the member for Ontario — it's a little bit unique for them to understand the concept of being a British Columbian, but it is important and I hope they join with us in this tremendous stride and progression forward. But you're doing it wrong, if you'll pardon the grammar; you're doing it wrong, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 1513 ]

You said a user fee. Talk to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — get his mind off advertising; sit him down. You're the Cardinal Richelieu of this government...it says so. It says so — a distinguished journalist has your picture here. There he is. He's the man behind the throne, pulling the strings. You sit down with the Minister of Mines and explain to him: "Look, Tom, old boy, the resource companies of this province have to pay some of their share. I can't ask my people in the South Peace River to pay the cost."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'm sure you would prefer I was in Hollywood rather than be here and needling you a bit.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You'd prefer I was someplace else; I know that, but I'll be around for a while. I'll be around for a while making sure you are doing a good job, the job I know you're capable of doing, Mr. Chairman, to the minister.

So there are four questions I have to ask: comment on the railroad through Monkman Pass, linking up with the Alberta resource railway; the Hat Creek coal situation and the study into aluminum as used for aluminum rolling plants and raw material for aluminum smelters; the coal-institute concept; and have you continued the discussions I started with NKK and Kaiser and others? Also: what is your attitude towards the user fees or royalties with respect to infrastructural costs, and what percentage of the user fee and royalty do you see in taking up that tremendous cost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond briefly to some of the subjects that the first member for Vancouver Centre brought up.

Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here thinking how much easier my job would be if I had all of this information that the minister has stored in his basement. So much of the things he is talking about....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When we start talking about mineral royalties and coal royalties, all of his attitudes and those letters that he felt were so secret are now mouldering in his damp basement.

MR. LAUK: Come on over and have a look. Bring your overalls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But they're there, all those secret documents that he didn't want the Hon. R.A. Williams to see, that he was writing these nasty mining companies — he hid them! Maybe some day I'm going to have the opportunity to have a look at them.

MR. LAUK: You'll have that opportunity,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But it's going to take time. Justice is sometimes slow, but in the end, Mr. Chairman, justice will not only be done, but will appear to be done as well.

Maybe if the member would dig in his files and give me that correspondence that he has with the Alberta resources railroad and with the government of Alberta we can continue on where he left off. But that's the problem, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK: Ask your deputy. He knows all about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Everything that I've had to do, I've had to start from the ground up.

MR. LAUK: Aren't you talking to your deputy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, the ground up.

Every time somebody makes a phone call it takes me an hour to get the answer because I have to send over to the BCR office or uptown to our Toronto Dominion Bank office, or over to the Vancouver office, and that costs the taxpayers money — $9 every time something comes over in a rush from one of those offices.

I'll let that go for the time being, but we shall pursue that with great vigour at a later date. I want to tell the member that we will take a look at shoving the railway south to link up with that Alberta resource railway, but I want to tell the member that that's a long way away.

I expect, Mr. Chairman, some announcements in the very near future, probably even maybe the middle of next week about more exploration on some of those southern properties, maybe the Saxon property. I don't know. I'm always waiting. Maybe some announcements will come. They have to be proven up and we're not going to put the cart before the horse. When those properties in the south end of that great, vast coal resource stretching from the Alberta border right through as far as the eye can see or the plane can fly in northern British Columbia, when those south resources are proven up.... That takes time. There hasn't been any work done yet. But I say maybe an announcement will be coming.

Now because people have faith in this great government again, maybe they're going to spend some millions of dollars in there and prove up that particular coal resource in the south known as the Saxon property. Pay attention. Watch the newspapers

[ Page 1514 ]

next week. Maybe you'll see some announcements.

MR. LAUK: Send up Arthur Weeks. He'll tell you whether it is all right or not.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell the member in response to Hat Creek that he must have been talking without this side of his mouth today because you know the announcement was made about Hat Creek.

MR. LAUK: You're talking through your hat.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're going to waste all that coal and they're going to do nothing. But Hydro's going to go in there and pollute the air and generate hydro and waste our natural resources when we have other resources.

But I wanted to know....

MR. LAUK: You're a dam government! All you build is dams!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, let this go firmly and solidly in the records of this legislative debate. That government over there when they were over here, that opposition over there when they were over here, I've heard them talk about preserving our natural resources because they're irreplaceable. We talk about an energy crisis, and what were they going to do? They're going to take hydrocarbons and generate hydro power.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I just have to tell you this because I fly over that great north country....

MR. LAUK: Do your arms get tired?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And when I look at it, and I see that great Liard River flowing into the Arctic Ocean, every minute that goes by millions and millions of BTU of energy is wasted every day.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that great river will flow and flow long after you and I are gone. It will take with it every day, every minute, every hour, millions and millions of BTU of energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you resign?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's BTU?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: British thermal units. I go over that great area and I see going into the Arctic Ocean energy and I get excited about it because it doesn't waste a natural resource.

MR. LAUK: It just kills the fish.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I haven't see too many fish.... No, no. Mr. Chairman, we always have to get a bunch of motherhood in. I don't think there has ever been a fish caught in the Liard River that I know of. Every spring we talk about pollution. Every spring that Liard River is so dirty and polluted by Mother Nature with sticks and stones and silt and sand you can't even see it!

MR. LAUK: But names will never hurt me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I say, there it is. They were going to burn up our natural resources — saying out of one side of their mouth "we want to preserve them," yet going full-tilt on the other to get rid of them and burn them up.

We're going to take a look at that great deposit at Hat Creek and we're going to determine what is the absolute best use for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. We're not going to be politically expedient — not at all. I want to tell you I look forward to pilot projects going in there to determine what the best use is for that coal. No, my friend, Mr. Chairman, don't worry. We will be prudent with the use of natural resources in British Columbia.

Technology — yes, absolutely. We will work with the province of Alberta — not in isolation just so we can say we did it and spend the taxpayers' dollars. We'll work with any country in the world — any company in the world — because there has been some done. Why should the little province of British Columbia start with $2 billion, with two million people, spend those hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that we will need to develop that technology if we start from scratch? No, we will cooperate with people who have already started on the technology. We will bring in experts in the field, Mr. Chairman. We will use their technology. We may even let some of the richer nations of the world develop the technology. We will not stop our own resource people from working but we will also work with other people in the world.

As a matter of fact, I have had discussions with the western industry ministers; as a matter of fact, we're talking about cooperating on technology development in western Canada for some of our resources.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but we're moving. You talk, we act; you talk, we act, Mr. Chairman. They talk, we act; they talk, we act.

MR. LAUK: What action?

[ Page 1515 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is the last final word that I want to say. Last night that ex-Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) stood on the floor of this Legislature and said: "I want that minister over there to tell the people of this province the great tremendous cost it is going to take those companies to bring that northeast coal on stream. I want to tell the people of the tremendous high cost of today's inflation and the cost of everything." Today he says: "Tell the people the millions of dollars those coal companies are going to make out of developing that coal."

MR. LAUK: Wrong again.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what happened to him last night while he was sleeping, but he said last night: "You tell the people of this province the tremendous amount of millions of dollars that they're going to have to put into that development."

MR. LAUK: You're confused.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, read it in Hansard.

MR. LAUK: No, no. You're confused.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not confused — you're confused. But I can understand that member being confused, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Will you resign your seat if I didn't say it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can understand that member being confused because he doesn't know who his leader is.

MR. LAUK: Will you resign your seat if I didn't say it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now the member wants me to resign. He knows what a tremendous loss that would be to the province of British Columbia if I did. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's funny.

MR. LAUK: No one's indispensable.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Particularly.

MR. LAUK: Even Cardinal Richelieu wasn't indispensable.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to take a look. As a matter of fact, while you were saying this great project was going ahead, we are in the planning stage so that when it does go ahead we will know what the different costs will be. We will be able to go to these coal companies and say: "Look, these are our costs."

MR. LAUK: You're stalling. Why are you stalling?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not stalling at all! I want to tell you we're working! We're working! We're working! We're working! People are in the field right now. They're checking and they're studying.

MR. LAUK: So far you're looking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, we're not. We're in the planning stages. We're finding out where the....

MR. LAUK: You're flying and you're looking. You're doing nothing; you're stalling.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's impossible to argue with this member, Mr. Chairman, because he doesn't want to listen. I want to tell the member that....

MR. LAUK: You're the nerve centre of this government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He gets on my nerves, too, but I'll try and restrain myself.

The member asked a question. If you look under the Department of Highways, you will find money. If you look under the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, you will find money. If you look under the Department of Labour, you will find money. If you look under the Department of Municipal Affairs, you will find money. If you look under the Department of Mines, you will find money. If you look under the Department of Transport, you will find money. There is even some money in the Department of Economic Development; that vote will be coming up very shortly.

We put our money where our mouth was. We're going to go ahead and we're going to do something, not just talk about it.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. What numbers are they?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Numbers?

MR. LAUK: Yes, we vote numbers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have to find out. I'll find out the exact votes.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the minister, through you, and pursue the question of the IPA studies, and perhaps we could elicit, if not a definite answer, at least some

[ Page 1516 ]

kind of a sense of direction as to where we are going, particularly with regard to my area or to the southeastern part of the province in general. As for the IPA studies, we were told the reason that we needed these studies was because we couldn't even begin to negotiate with the federal government for DREE funds until such time as these studies were complete because there was no point in signing agreements with Ottawa until we knew exactly what we wanted and where the money was going to go.

During the last 15 years, looking at the parts of Canada that have received significant DREE funds, it has been exemplified time and time again that there's been money spent which has in fact, in many cases, gone down the tube. It has had very little lasting benefit to the regions that it went to. What we really want is a businesslike approach to getting these funds for British Columbia. That was the policy of the former government and I gather it's the policy of the present government, but under the guise of this we have also had no action.

We were given to believe in our area that we were almost ready to go last fall. The election came and the administration changed. We are still told that we are almost ready to go. I am wondering if these things have been completed and they have kind of been put aside for six months in order that, when they are trotted out, it won't appear as though it was the result of work done by the former government. And that's all right, Mr. Chairman, providing that that, in fact, is the case and we are going to see some infrastructure agreements under the IPA studies, or following the IPA studies, relative to my area.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as the minister well knows, because I have met with him in his office on this...and I must say he's right when the says his door is open — I have met with him along with representatives from various organizations in my riding, and it has turned out that he does have an open mind and he's given us a lot of sympathy. But what we really don't need is sympathy; what we need is some action. We are certainly not asking the Department of Economic Development to do all our work for us.

I think the minister is well aware that the part of the province that I represent is pretty well set up already in terms of the social elements of infrastructure. We have good hospitals; we have good schools; we are well supplied with post-secondary educational and technological training. In fact, we have 300 apprentices in my riding right now taking trades training under various programmes of the province and the Department of Manpower. We have a good labour force, which is perhaps the most important when we're talking about economic development and expansion. Perhaps even more important than that, we have an excellent technological and managerial community within my riding. In fact, as the minister knows, there is metallurgical engineering and technology done in Trail which is exported to the rest of the world. It's not just in British Columbia and Canada; Cominco does this kind of work on a worldwide basis.

We have land as well, Mr. Minister, that's available. The problem is that it's not serviced for economic development. In a time when serviced land for economic development runs at $250,000 to $300,000 an acre in the lower mainland where a great many of the people are complaining about growth — you have parts of the province that want to see growth on a controlled and reasonable basis.

These are places where land is available at very reasonable rates, where energy is available at reasonable rates through the West Kootenay Power and Light Co. — I am hoping that the government and B.C. Hydro do not take that company over and put our electrical energy rates up — and where natural gas is available at low rates through the Inland Natural Gas Co., and I am certainly hoping that B.C. Hydro does not take any action in that regard, which is opposed to the interests of the southern part of British Columbia. We have all this going for us and yet, to this date, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, there has not been a single referral to that area of even a prospect from the Department of Economic development under any of the last three governments of this province. I would hope that the department would get involved.

You can't tell me, and nor can you tell the people in my riding, with the growth that has taken place over the last 10 years in this province, that there would not have been one single manufacturer, with all that's going for the area, who would not have been the least bit interested in coming and asking some questions through the Ministry of Economic Development. There have been many who have been referred to the area by people doing their own homework, by people going out and actively soliciting, nationally and internationally, but nothing has happened through that Ministry.

I would hope that something would happen because this is something which, as I mentioned earlier, while there are many parts of the province which are opposed to growth of any kind, in fact there are some parts which, while they don't want uncontrolled rag-tag growth, would like to see controlled growth of specific industries in certain areas. Certainly you would get every cooperation, as you well know, from municipal groups, from planning groups, from the regional district and from industry, and even from the local politicians.

So I would hope that rather than simply talk rhetorically in this House about the fact that DREE money has not come this way, about the fact that we have been bypassed by the federal government.... I submit, Mr. Minister, that the southeastern part of

[ Page 1517 ]

British Columbia has, in fact, been bypassed by the Ministry and by the provincial government as well as by the federal government. I would agree entirely with your philosophy that you expressed — in fact, I would add to it — that we certainly don't want to see handouts or subsidies to industry in British Columbia. An industry or business which can't stand on its own two feet shouldn't be here.

What we're looking for is infrastructure agreements, and, as you well know, the primary thing that we need in the West Kootenays is an adequate water supply. We've got 100,000 cubic feet per second going across the border at Waneta of soft, clear water. Yet every community in my riding is short of a guaranteed supply of water, both in terms of quantity and quality, and that's primarily what we need.

We need an infrastructure agreement, similar to the one that the department negotiated last year with the city of Fort Nelson in the extreme northeastern corner of the province and the federal government, and whereby it was a three-sevenths, three-sevenths, one-seventh financial arrangement. That's the kind of thing we would like to see, that kind of positive action.

I submit, Mr. Minister, that that would not cost the province anything more than the existing water-sharing agreements would. The advantage of it, of course, is that the provincial and local commitment is on a 20-year or 25-year financing arrangement; the federal is a lump-sum grant right now — which would reduce the user cost in the local area. Certainly I believe that the returns, both to the province and to the federal government, in terms of tax dollars and property taxes, income taxes, corporation taxes and sales taxes over a very few years — probably less than 10 years — would more than repay any investment that this province or the federal government may make.

But you are going to have to take the leadership because we know that Ottawa isn't. You, your department and your ministry are going to have to take the leadership. If it is simply waiting for a reasonable period of time to have elapsed since the election so you can take all the credit for yourself, that's fine. I'll grant you that because my primary concern is to stabilize and diversify the economy of the Rossland-Trail area. That is the most important thing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern for his riding, and I share that with him. He visited in my office with some people from his riding, and I share that concern. I look forward to getting into your area, Mr. Member, as soon as possible, taking a first-hand look and meeting again with your officials.

MR. D'ARCY: I'll see that you're invited.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't really appreciate the remark that I'm trying to wait long enough to take credit for it. You know that I'm not that type of an individual, and I really do resent it. I've been putting in pretty long hours in this job. I don't want to be political, or I don't want to say that we can't do in four months what you didn't do in three and a half years.

Strike that from the record, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to say it. (Laughter.)

The study on your area, Mr. Member, is, I understand, just about ready to go to the Queen's Printer. But I want to warn the member not to expect, when he gets that study, that it's going to be a solve-all recommendation. Really what it is is an inventory of opportunities so we'll know what exists and in what area we can move in your particular area.

We are in the throes of starting our negotiations. Maybe I've been remiss, and our department has been remiss, in not moving swifter on this to get these agreements with Ottawa, but we did have to really study the situation because once we started on a path, we wanted to know we were going in the right direction. As I say, there will be no agreements; it will be direct subsidies to industries in the province of British Columbia. It will all be for infrastructures and help to particular areas.

One agreement, if we get it, that will help you in two areas concerns land. I'm not going to get into details because we haven't negotiated with Ottawa yet. We haven't finalized them.

MR. D'ARCY: We have the land.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: One will be to help with land, the other will be with infrastructure, and it will be in an area.... But it has to be an area where industry is going to go in and put an impost on the community so we can help them and so that they won't have to bear the burden.

With regard to your land, I think we might be able to do something in that area with the development corporation. As I say, I want to get in and take a took at it. I do appreciate your concern, and I hope that we can come up with some definite, positive action in that area. But, again, I can't guarantee anything in that area. I am aware of the problem; I do want to assist; I do want to help. I will be getting in there. In the meantime, we are working with Ottawa to get these agreements drawn up, and which will help in your area in two respects.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up, I certainly appreciate the minister's remarks, but I would like to make it very clear to him that I don't want him, or this House, to feel that what is essentially a very simple situation should be more

[ Page 1518 ]

complicated than it needs to be. As I said in my remarks, my area is not burdened with a complex series of needs such as for railroads, highways, airports — any of these sorts of things which many parts of the province are. These things are already in place. We can easily zero in right now on one thing and one thing only, and that is a freshwater system — fresh, clear, soft water, and lots of it. We've got the source, all we need is the pumping facilities and the distribution facilities. The local distribution facilities are already in, in terms of industry, commercial and civic developments.

I'm very interested, though, in the minister's remarks regarding civic developments and the burdens on communities, because the Department of Housing has recently completed a study for the city of Trail involving some benchland which the city wished to develop and put on the market at cost. In fact, the land value is below cost because a corporate citizen, Cominco Ltd., very generously was willing to put that land on the market at below their cost, below its appraised value. But the problem was the servicing. With the land cost even at below market value, plus the servicing cost, the value would come to somewhere between $28,000 and $30,000 a lot. Now, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you know that the city of Trail simply cannot bear costs like that, nor can the taxpayers.

If we can get assistance for that kind of development, straight related to the economic development and industrial development, through your office or through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I can assure you that this would be a major feather in your hat.

I would like to point out that the former government, the former, former Socred government and the coalition government before that has been promising the world to the Kootenays for years and years and years. I would submit that nothing positive has happened there, except what has been done by private endeavour, nothing positive. Certainly I don't think we can count, apart from flood control, the Columbia River Treaty as a positive development because it left us with a reduced tax base, a reduced amount of usable land and no jobs. And the minister is aware of that.

As I say, I would be most appreciative, in a very non-partisan way, of anything that his department of this government could do. We're not looking for handouts, we're not looking for freebies, we're not looking for massive intervention; we're looking for one thing, a water system. Secondly, we are looking for help for our municipalities in the event that they are forced to bring large areas of land and make it available for detached residential dwellings.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting a long time to just make some very brief comments about the section 1n the minister's department dealing with the women's economic branch. But the minister has been filibustering his estimates and it's taken me a long time to get on my feet. I'm going to be very brief because I know he's going to make a long speech, but I just want to ask a couple of questions about it.

Now the previous Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) recognized that really the whole business of equality in our community was tied to one's economic status. In fact, as long as women were dependent either on their spouses, their parents or the government or whatever, any talk about equality was really academic. There was never ever going to be any true equality unless there was an economic kind of independence that they would experience at the same time. So the previous Minister of Economic Development, recognizing this, introduced in his department a section known as the Women's Economic Rights Division.

He had to put up a fight to get that section 1ntroduced, there's not a question about it, because everyone is trying to run their department on as little money as possible. Not only did he have to put up a fight to introduce this, he had to put up a fight to save it. To prevent the minister getting up and giving me a speech about it, I'm going to tell him that I already know that. But, in fact, the work done by that division was so important and so crucial that what I want to do is express, first of all, my concern for the continuation of that division.

Maybe the minister would like to know a couple of things and a couple of the ways in which we have used that division over the couple of years that it has been in existence. There are a number of women, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, in the minister's own riding in Peace River who wanted to open small business enterprises. When I was visiting that riding a couple of years ago they expressed this concern to me, that they didn't know how to go about doing it. This really is not one of the things covered in our school system; it's not one of the things that we know how to do. How do you start a business? A lot of men inherit their father's business, or they work in a business as they grow up. It's not a traditional thing that women do.

So these women were referred to the Women's Economic Rights Division of the minister's department. Workshops were set up in the South Peace — and I see the minister nodding his head, so he knows — where it was explained how one goes about setting up a small business, and how one becomes a good businessperson in terms of running the thing in a financially viable way.

Another area where this was used extensively was in the area of crafts. A lot of women do creative things which they can do at home, whether it is weaving or potting or crochet or whatever, and would

[ Page 1519 ]

like to be able to sell their wares, to be able to realize some kind of income from this, but didn't quite know how to go about doing that. Again, I referred these women to the Women's Economic Rights Division of that department. Again, workshops were set up in how one goes about going into the business of running a small-craft establishment.

Right here in Victoria, Circle Crafts is a beautiful example of the kind of really good work that was done by that division in helping that group of potters and weavers, some of whom were men, to go into the business of trying to realize an income from their skills and from their talents.

So I'm really quite concerned about this division and about its continuity, especially since the only other access that women had to this government has been closed to them. I'm referring to the co-ordinator of the status of women under the Provincial Secretary's department, which was one of the first things that the Provincial Secretary did when she took office, the closing down of that office.

Now that was a department where women could apply for funding to help them in terms of grants. This division, the Women's Economic Rights Division, is quite different. What you get here is expertise and advice in how to survive as an independent economic unit, and in a lot of ways it is much more important and a lot more vital to us than was the office which was run under the Provincial Secretary's department.

One of the things that the division also did was research. I noticed as I was going through the terms of reference laid out by this department when it was first set up that it was supposed to investigate the background of women and poverty in British Columbia. Now that's a very crucial kind of study that we need to know. We have to have that kind of information. I'm wondering whether this work has been done, or whether the minister can tell me whether funds are going to be made available so the division can get on with the business of research which is so important in this area.

You know, the major role of women in our economy at this time is that of consumers. In fact, the great GNP that we keep hearing about and the increase in spending, to a large extent, is mainly the responsibility of women. As Galbraith pointed out to us, really the only function that we have in this economy is to consume, to spend and spend and spend. Yet there is no record anywhere of our input in the GNP, certainly in terms...and I'm referring to British Columbia and Canada. The Americans have done some very good work on this and maybe I could refer the minister to one reference that would be of great use to him in this regard. It was done in the United States and it's the kind of thing we would like to see done here. It's a study done by Walker and Gage on the dollar value of household work, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. An index was tried to be done of the kind of contribution that women make to the gross national product in terms of their consuming role in society, in terms of their spending.

I tried recently through the department, and I dealt with the minister personally on this, to get some kind of information about the input also that women make into the society in terms of either paid labour or unpaid labour. Again, the department was unable to come up with that kind of information. In all fairness, I must admit that they were extremely helpful and referred me to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in Ottawa, where I discovered to my horror that they couldn't come up with the information either, that they had not done this study. So it seems that it's going to be up to this little province to lead the way in getting together the kind of information which will give us a really honest assessment of the input that women have into the economic growth of our society.

You know, the American study tells us, in fact, that in the last year alone, the kind of input that women put into the American GNP was over $200 billion annually. We want to know in this country what kind of input we make to the GNP here too, because it's very important to us. A lot of services and things that women ask for, government gives them the impression that they're asking for charity and they're asking for handouts, by deliberately not taking into account the input and deliberately not measuring the kind of input that we make into the economy. We have to have those figures. One of the reasons for the setting up of this department was that that kind of research was going to be done so these kinds of figures were going to be available to government as well as to women's groups and other groups around the province.

The other thing that I want to say about this business of economics, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, is that there really is never going to be any meaningful change in terms of the role that women play in the economy of a province until we are a part of the policy formulation, until we are part of the policy that's being made. Again, this is another thing that this branch should be doing, and I know to some extent that surely it must be done.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Surely, in terms of the development of the north and the coal thing that the member for Vancouver Centre talked about, there must be a lot of input from the women's economic branch into that because when you move into an area and you start a development, you can't just look at it only in terms of the natural resources. You have to look at the social resources as well and you have to have input from the people who have to live in that area when it

[ Page 1520 ]

is opened up. This is the kind of input that this branch should be giving in terms of measuring the social impact on it, in terms of job opportunities for women who will be moving into the area, either job opportunities on a part-time or a full-time basis.

So my second question to the minister has to do with this: what about the development of the north and to what extent in the coal project development are you using the Women's Economic Rights Division? What kind of input do they have in this?

The third question has to do with the research which the branch was settled to do in terms of our economic input. What about it? Has it started? When will this kind of information be available to us?

I also notice that one of the things that the branch was supposed to do was to monitor the whole business of the department itself in terms of equal opportunity for women in the Department of Economic Development itself. I want to know how that is coming along. It goes under the term "affirmative action." I want to know how that is coming along.

My final question has to do with the role of the director of this branch herself. In speaking to the previous Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk), in terms of the frame of reference which was outlined in the beginning, she was supposed to have a director's status within the department. Has this been carried through? Is she a director? I think it is to our discredit, as indeed it is to yours and that of the government before you, that women in the civil service are all concentrated in the lower echelons of the civil service. There are so few of them who have reached a director's level. In fact, if you had gone through with the blueprint as it is laid out and she had been appointed to director's level, she would have been one of the top-ranking women in the civil service. I think there are only something like seven women presently at that level.

If you wouldn't mind answering very briefly, Mr. Minister, these four questions for me, I would appreciate that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, the branch is continuing all those activities consistent with the original mandate. With regard to the northeast coal study the branch is having input into the labour studies and into the community resource studies that are going on there. With regard to the positions in the branch, the lady in charge becoming a director is not finalized at the present time. It wasn't finalized by the previous government. We'll take a look at it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we haven't this year any additional moneys to go into the research that is needed. We'll take a look at it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I understand your concern about it. I'm told by my deputy that we do have an allocation of funds but it's a matter of gearing the staff to do the job.

MS. BROWN: Could I just ask one supplemental? Can we anticipate a report on the work of this section of your department reasonably soon?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The work of this particular branch will be in the annual report.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, the minister conjured up a very positive image as he stood on the banks of the Liard River. It was something like King Canute — he wanted to roll back all the waters. One of the things that the minister has been credited with saying is that he is against expansion that will create hardship. He said that recently when he was in his home riding. I think that that's a very good....

He's leaving now, so I hope his deputy takes notes, because I am going to deal with his riding. Maybe you'd better wait.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, I'll have to get the deputy minister just to nod as I ask a couple of questions. Is he still the president of the BCR?

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

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, maybe you could inform me: is he still president of the BCR?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on with your remarks, Hon. Member, please.

MR. LEVI: Well, we'll presume that he's still the president of the BCR and hasn't been reshuffled. In line with a statement that he made that he is against expansion that will create hardship, presumably he is articulating the policy of the government that they will be careful in terms of hardships that are created when they go into expansion. What I want to ask him is: what is happening in respect to remedying the hardship that was created under the previous Social Credit administration — namely the Stuart-Trembleur Indian band problem?

Some years ago the PGE, as it was then, negotiated to go through the band lands or the right-of-way. Part of the agreement was that the right-of-way would be

[ Page 1521 ]

granted subject to an exchange of land on the basis of three to one. Now the history actually started in 1967. The band was in touch with the lands branch in 1969. In the spring of 1972, up to that time some survey work had been going on and then in spring of 1972 the construction work started and the band itself was becoming increasingly concerned because no settlement had been made regarding the environmental damage nor had they completed the three-for-one land swap. In fact there was a letter from the Department of Lands to the B.C. Railway on December 8, 1972, in which it said: "The Indians are now claiming that certain trapping crossing points are adversely affected by our grade, that it is difficult for the trappers to navigate and they want an inspection made after break-up."

Nothing really happened in respect to the hardships created by the railroad. When the new government came in the railroad was completing its survey. Discussions took place about compensation for the damage to the environment and this was remedied. Then further discussions were had with the BCR and the government regarding the setting up of an economic development study.

It's my understanding, and as the minister is not here.... But I would like him to tell us at what stage are those negotiations?

Last summer there had been agreement on approximately 900 acres of the 1,100 that had to be agreed to. I would also like him to tell me whether there has been any progress in respect to the Edward Reid report regarding economic development.

The second question that I want to deal with is also a question of economic development, and this affects an Indian settlement in the area, the Kelly Lake settlement which is in the minister's riding. That band was in receipt of a grant from the Department of Human Resources and it paid the Frontier College organization the money to provide two people to work in the area. That agreement was made some two years ago. This Kelly Lake is a very remote area. I see the minister's coming back so I'll just go back over my remarks about the Kelly Lake band and then recover the ones on the BCR.

I'm talking now, Mr. Chairman, to the minister regarding the Kelly Lake situation. The minister may know that there was a grant made to the Kelly Lake band which the Frontier College provided two people — as it happened it was a man and wife — to work with the band an a number of items including the question of economic development.

That grant continued for two years but it has now been cut off. In the recent list of grants that his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), circulated, the grant to Kelly Lake no longer exists.

I'm sure that the minister will realize that in view of the geographical location of Kelly Lake and the efforts that were made by the Simards in developing a number of programmes, including working with and on a local initiative programme in terms of an entrepreneurial effort, I would hope that he would take the opportunity to discuss with his colleague the Minister of Human Resources the continuation of this grant. This is an extremely important grant for that area and I will be taking the opportunity on Monday of asking his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources.

But going back to the discussion about the BCR, I understand that the minister still is the president. I was asking about these negotiations in respect to the Stuart-Trembleur band and where they are at in terms of the land swap and what is happening in terms of the economic development package that was put together by Edward Reid and whether this is being proceeded with.

One of the important things that I've noticed has been missed in the discussions that the minister had in this House regarding economic development: he appears to have consistently stayed away from including the Indian people in terms of their economic development. I'd be interested in his answering a question regarding the Stuart-Trembleur band and the land swap and the economic development package, and also whether he's prepared to assist the Kelly Lake band in obtaining a further grant so that it can continue its development and move into the entrepreneurial efforts that it has been making over the past two years.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, with regard to the British Columbia Railway, I'd like to inform the member, Mr. Chairman, that I am not and never have been the president of the British Columbia Railway.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Vice-president, executive.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to inform the member for New Westminster that I am not the vice-president of the British Columbia Railway.

I would like to inform the House, Mr. Chairman, that, as is known and is written in the record, I am a director.

MR. LAUK: You're the czar of the BCR.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am a director of the British Columbia Railway.

I want to tell the members, Mr. Chairman, for the record that I'm the only cabinet minister who is a director of the British Columbia Railway at the present time. It is our intention, as I said last night in this House, to keep the British Columbia Railway out of the realm of politics, to have a completely independent board.

[ Page 1522 ]

I want to further inform the House, Mr. Chairman, that as a director of the railway, I'm not receiving any director's fees, which is contrary to policy that was established over many years. No cabinet minister ever receives director's fees.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just going over the accounts payable of financial statements of the British Columbia Railway, and there's a little figure in here for Mr. A. Nunweiler of $3,000. It's my information that while he was a cabinet minister he was also paid as a director of the British Columbia Railway.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Alfie? It must be a typographical error.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is it a typographical error?

Certainly it's a great change from any policy by the previous government, and certainly even while the NDP were in office none of the other cabinet ministers who were directors of that railway ever received any remuneration as a director. Maybe some of the members in opposition could answer the question as to why Mr. Nunweiler was paid director's fees while he was a....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's on page 15 of the financial statements of the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ended January 2, 1976.

As I say, my understanding of this little sum of $3,043.73 is that Mr. Nunweiler was indeed paid director's fees while a director and also a cabinet minister. I don't know why. I know the Minister of Economic Development didn't receive any director's fees, and I know that the Premier didn't receive any director's fees. I was quite amazed, Mr. Chairman, that our past Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Nunweiler) was paid director's fees.

With regard to the Indian land claims on the BCR, I would prefer, Mr. Member, that you bring that up while the estimates of the minister in charge of Indian affairs are going through the House. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), as you are well aware, has that under his jurisdiction.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the minister says it's under the Minister of Labour's jurisdiction. We're dealing with the BCR; we're dealing with the negotiations that are being conducted by Mr. Rutley. That's clearly under the BCR, not under the Minister of Labour. We're not dealing with a land claims settlement as such but rather an agreement that was made some years ago for a land swap. If the minister doesn't know any of the details, that's fine — after all, he only sits on the board as a director. I would suspect he doesn't know.

The other question that I asked he completely ignored — are you prepared to assist the residents of Kelly Lake, which is in your own constituency? Are you prepared to make representations on behalf of these people to have the grant that was made to the Kelly Lake group reinstituted so they could carry on with improving their situation, particularly in terms of some economic development which they're attempting?

The minister, Mr. Chairman, can't slide out of the issue of the Stuart-Trembleur Band on the land question, we're dealing with a very specific BCR matter here. If he doesn't know he can just indicate he doesn't know and we'll try it under the Minister of Labour.

It's quite clearly a BCR matter. There are a number of pieces of correspondence which are headed "BCR" which are signed by Mr. Mac Norris, the vice-president. Surely, Mr. Minister, you must know about those kinds of negotiations that have been going on. It's not the issue to slide over to the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the member that the management of the railway is running the management and I'll certainly be quite happy to give him a report as to where the negotiations are.

MR. LEVI: That's very generous of the minister. I appreciate that.

Now what about the Kelly Lake band? They're constituents of yours. Would you like to comment on the grant that they're no longer getting? Are you prepared to approach your colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), to reinstitute this grant which is so essential to them? You know where Kelly Lake is, I presume. It's not quite inside Alberta but it's in your riding.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would be most pleased to check into the matter, talk with my colleague and find out the situation.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister can stand in his place and assure us, as a minister of the Crown, that Mr. Nunweiler received $3,000 from the railway as director's fees.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the information I have is that the amount of $3,000 was 12 equal payments of $250 per month for fees as a director of the company. The railway paid directors $250 a month only and did not pay the president,

[ Page 1523 ]

executive vice-president and secretary. The amount of $43.73 was a payment made to Mr. Nunweiler for goods damaged, shipped under way bill 271388.

Vote 36 approved.

MR. WALLACE: We finally surprised the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A pleasant surprise.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 4: deputy minister's office, $1,178,296.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I notice in this vote there is a sum provided for contributions to fairs and societies. I would like to ask the minister if this is the spot where the grants are allocated for women's aid and farmers' institutes.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, it just occurs to me that the minister might better be able to answer some of these questions if his deputy were here. I wonder whether, by leave, we might agree to proceed with the votes in the Department of Economic Development while that deputy is still available. There are just two or three votes left, I think, and rather than bring your other deputy back at a later date, I am sure we would agree to....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you would agree to that, I would be most happy to withdraw.

Leave granted.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 37: general administration, $4,763,066.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could indicate two things to me: where is the salary for the director, or if she's not a director, the head of the Women's Economic Rights Division?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote 37.

MR. LAUK: But where can I find her salary in vote 37?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry. Did you already give that answer in Hansard?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's under trade development officer 3 — E. M. Canner, $21,756.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if he could also indicate...in policy planning and research there is an associate deputy minister, under the deputy minister's office, and there is an associate deputy minister under business and industrial development; I understand that there are now three individuals at ADM status. There is Dr. Rea, Mr. Meredith and Mr. McKeown. I'm just puzzled; I don't see another ADM status there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rea's appointment was made after the estimates were prepared. It was passed by order-in-council; the salary will be the same.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just two brief items, the main items in increased expenditure, and listed under technical-assistance programmes and trade missions. Between these two items there is a very substantial increase, the first one by 250 per cent — two and a half times. Trade missions are not quite doubled. Very briefly, could the minister tell us the new areas that will be covered by these increased expenditures?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be most happy to. Increased expenditures reflect a higher level of activity in assistance to secondary industry and small businesses; also included are funds required for study of higher value-added processing of agricultural products. The sharp percentage in the increase is a distortion, since the small-business assistance division was fully staffed for less than one-half of the 1975-76 fiscal year; in other words, it wasn't a full year. Increased activity with regard to offshore trade missions to expand B.C. exports leading to increased employment and provincial revenue....

MR. WALLACE: Any particular new areas for trade missions?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We have a summary. I could provide the member with a summary of our planned trips.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote where we're going to have to pick up, I would think, the whole amount of the proposed staff reduction salary saving of $ 29 1,000. Now it must mean either a cut-back in existing staff, or perhaps the figure of $102,000 in vote 37, provided for in estimates last year, is not the figure currently employed — maybe we already have a 15 per cent reduction. What I'm really asking is: how many people are currently

[ Page 1524 ]

employed in the department as related to vote 37? While you're looking for that then, I'll just pursue my point a little more. It's the only vote in which there is any salary vote of any consequence. To achieve a 15 per cent reduction, I'm sure the minister and his staff must have given some serious thought to where these reductions might take place.

The hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) did make reference to the expansion in certain activities unless that expansion is to be accompanied by a staff increase. Well, then,, of course, there won't be that expansion. What I really want to be assured of is that there will be the staff increase.... Have you got the figure now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Staff recruitment is taking place at the present time. As of February 28, 1975, we had 64 employed, 43 vacancies, for a total of 107; February 29, 1976, we had employed 79, plus 15 auxiliary, 30 vacancies, for a total of 109.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just a brief question to the minister regarding Economic Development assistance to our native Indian people. I would like to know what the minister has done in the last five months. Has he met with Indian people on good sound economic ventures, to assist them or help underwrite loans or guarantee loans on sound business ventures that they have proposed?. Has he met with these people?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, we take a look at proposals as they come up, but we will be working with the minister responsible for Indian affairs. As you know, there are negotiations going on and we'll take a look at projects. There have been some projects in the past, and some of them have been better than others, but we'll take a look at them as they come in.

Vote 37 approved.

On vote 38: grants, $1,260,000.

MR. LAUK: I have one or two questions under this vote, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the British Columbia Research Council, I would ask that the minister indicate whether or not he is playing an active role in the affairs of the council, because I understand, by virtue of his office, he will be chairman of the board. I took some interest in the affairs of this excellent group of researchers and the facility itself. I wonder if there is going to be any change in policy. Further, it may be appropriate to have even greater liaison between the department and this research council.

The second question I have is that I understand that the western transportation advisory council grant has either been discontinued or transferred. Could the minister indicate to where?

The third question: is there going to be more money for a greater presence at the PNE in terms of various other departments, or is it going to remain at that $40,000 figure?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the member says, by virtue of my office I am automatically chairman of the research council. It's an area that I haven't had the opportunity yet to get into. Just how active I'm going to be, I can't tell you at this time. But I do want to get into it and find out what is going on.

MR. LAUK: Appoint your deputy to the board.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we'll take a look at it. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern but, as I say, it's an area that I haven't had the opportunity to get into yet. As soon as we say "aye" enough, then I'll be into it.

MR. LAUK: Don't intimidate the opposition.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the western transportation advisory council, that sum has been transferred to the Department of Transport and Communications.

MR. LAUK; And the last question — the PNE? Is it going to be $40,000 every year, or what are you going to do with it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we've continued the PNE grant. We're always open for advice and always ready to take a second look.

Vote 38 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 4: deputy minister's office, $1,178, 926 — continued.

MR. WALLACE: Just very briefly I want to repeat something we discussed in the minister's estimates, salary estimate, and also under former debates in this House, the $350,000 agricultural aid to developing countries.

I want it clearly in the record that the government, in reclaiming or recapturing the fund that was set up under specific legislation, has given the House a guarantee that there will always be roughly an equivalent amount of money in this budget each year which would otherwise represent the interest which was gained on the separate fund of $5 million capital.

We have had the reassurance from the Minister of

[ Page 1525 ]

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — I'm glad he's in the House to recall the commitment that was made when the funds were recaptured — that the money would continue to be made available by this government and that while it would always appear in this budget of the deputy minister's office, it would not lose sight of the fact that only the mechanism has changed. Instead of having a specific fund, the interest of which is spend, we will always see in the budget year by year under this government — we can't guarantee that it would happen under future governments, perhaps...but under this government we have this commitment that this approximate sum of money which in this case is $350,000 will always appear in the budget for aid to developing countries.

I wonder if the minister this year can give us any preliminary idea of the specific ways in which the $350,000 will be spent, or can he at least tell us if there are at the moment applications or proposals on his desk, or more accurately on his deputy's desk, which if accepted would be the first expenditures out of this $350,000 fund?

I've said before that I believe this is a very, very small contribution by a wealthy province to a global problem. While it's better than nothing, I think that $350,000 out of a $3.6 billion budget is really less than what we should do as a province and a country showing some leadership in a matter of world concern, namely feeding the many millions who are starving in other countries.

But has the minister any preliminary details at the moment as to how this money will be spent this year?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to tell the member that I cannot, at this time, commit ensuing governments, but I did state in the House, when we had a discussion on this during the budget speech, that it was my hope and my desire that eventually the fund will be re-established, and hopefully not $5 million but maybe $10 million, so we can spend the interest on....

With regard to the actual expenditures and the claims, this was discussed yesterday afternoon or last evening in the House and I offered to send the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) a full list of the expenditures and the claims. I know that everything is processed at the present time. Everything is up to date. I would be quite happy to have the member receive a list the same as is going to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. Is that satisfactory?

MR. WALLACE: Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There is a report prepared. It's in the department and I'll have it sent to you.

MR. WALLACE: Just a final comment. The report the minister has, is that up to the end of March, 1976? I was more interested to know if there are any preliminary requests made which would start into this year's amount.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I do know that all of the claims or all of the requests are current processed and my report is to the end of March, as far as I'm concerned. Now I wouldn't want to state that emphatically, but to my knowledge the report will be to the end of March.

MRS. WALLACE: Further to that particular point in question, I've had a query from one of my constituents who has been trying to contact....

Apparently there was a committee that administered the fund before, and I would like to ask the minister: is that committee still in operation? Is it still processing on the same basis? There has been no change? The minister nods his head.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to inform the member that the committee is intact. There have been no changes, to my knowledge. There have been no changes in it. It's processing. Everything is going on the same as it was before, to my knowledge.

MRS. WALLACE: Another question under this vote. I notice that there is allowed a sum of $100,000 for a field demonstration and testing of new technology. Now that's no change from last year, Mr. Chairman, but the point I wish to raise is that that $100,000 apparently is simply adequate to cover the programmes that are presently on stream and because of that there is no provision for any additional ones.

I understand there was a request for an additional programme, something to do with disease in peas, which could not be accepted because there were no funds even at this point in time. I'm wondering if the minister would consider increasing that amount so there would be provision for new programmes in that area.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that some of the programmes that were going on were completed. I don't have the details on the pea programme but that is all the money we can put in for this year. But some of the programmes have been completed, it is my understanding, so we may be able to take new ones on as others are finalized during the year.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't believe that was the reply that was given to the people that applied for the pea programme — the study on the disease in peas. So I would certainly urge him to check into that.

[ Page 1526 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly I'd be most happy to check into it and get you a detailed review on it.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, we're on vote 4, is it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 4, Department of Agriculture.

MR. SKELLY: Grants to fairs and societies.

I'm just wondering if the Minister of Agriculture is planning to increase grants to class C fairs this year. According to a letter I have from the previous Minister of Agriculture dated August 22, 1975, some class C fairs were receiving up to $5,000 capital grants last year because of the high cost of building fair buildings. I understand that the Alberni Valley Fall Fair, for instance, this year is planning to spend $20,000 for new stables and new fair buildings. Yet the policy for capital grants to fall fairs is still at the same figure that it has been at for the past many years. They pay one-third of the total capital expense up to a maximum of $3,000. I am wondering if the minister has any plans to increase capital grants to fall fairs. There has been no increase at all in the allocation under this section of the vote.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No.

MR. SKELLY: Would the minister undertake to look into this problem? With the increase in sales tax, cost of construction and cost of materials, especially as a result of some of the tax measures that his government has taken, it is very difficult for some of the voluntary societies, who put out a great deal of time and effort to conduct these fall fairs, to do the work that they are required to do. I wonder if the minister would undertake to look into increasing the amount of capital grants made under this vote.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I might as well be perfectly truthful with the member: I can't do it this year. I'd like to see it increased, but I can't do it this year.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have checked with the government Whip, actually. I understand that there was no firm undertaking given that we would complete Agriculture today. There are specific questions that some of us would like to ask. We don't intend to take long, but it's just that we feel the minister really should have his deputy here. For example, I would like to know in what areas there will be staff cuts that will have to be made in order to cut back the 15 per cent. That's just one of the questions. Details about the food council, for example. There are detailed questions like that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can answer those questions for you. Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, the staff cuts were started last year. The department is not planning any staff cuts further than the 15 per cent; as a matter of fact, in some areas we are increasing staff.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I recognize there will be a need to increase in some areas. We do want to discuss the details in some of those areas. We do want to discuss the details in some of those areas. I would like to ask the government to report resolution.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.