[ Page 837 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 79:

Mr. Skelly — 837

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 841

Mr. Lauk — 841

Mr. Skelly — 844

Ms. Sanford — 845

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 846

Mr. Skelly — 846

Mrs. Wallace — 847

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 851

Mr. Strongman — 851

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 853

Mr. Nicolson — 853

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 855

Mr. Skelly — 855

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 857

Mr. King — 857

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1977

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery tonight Mr. Howie Coldwell, along with his wife Eva. I ask the House to join me in welcome.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

On vote 79: minister's office, $141,324 — continued.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I prepared a few notes during the two-and-a-half-hour break.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 79.

MR. SKELLY: But I'm kind of reluctant to engage in debate on this minister's estimates. It seems that everything that this minister touches, like old King Migraine of Greek mythology, turns to judicial inquiries or royal commissions. It's difficult to tell which area of the minister's department we can discuss because so much of it has been turned over to the administration of royal commissions and judicial enquiries. I don't know whether I should ask questions of the minister or you, Mr. Chairman, or of the RCMP or maybe telephone a judge or what, because the minister himself seems very reluctant to answer questions in the House. He's had some real problems with his department. Certain of his executive assistants and staff members from the department have been dismissed for nefarious activities involved in stock promotion down in the Grizzly Valley there. He's been accused of bungling and causing problems for the economy of this province. He's attacked some members on this side of the House for coming up with nothing positive, and yet there appears to be nothing positive coming from that minister's office.

To relieve the depression that has been created by the Social Credit government in the economy of British Columbia he has no strategy for industrial development in this province whatsoever. It's very difficult. Every question asked of that minister he can't answer: it's under the jurisdiction of a judicial enquiry; it's under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General's department. It's very difficult to get that minister to answer any questions whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. It reminds me of a statement that Jeremy Bentham once made. You can take notes on this, if you like. "Guilty people wish to remain silent while innocents cry out for the right to speak."

This minister has remained silent on every important question presented to him relative to the MEL Paving case, relative to land dealings in his riding through BCDC, relative to the involvement between him and creditors of B.C. Rail and contractors relating to B.C. Rail. The minister refuses to answer any questions of any significance at all. I'd like campaign contributions from Quasar and other companies related to gas rights in the Grizzly Valley — that kind of thing.

Last September, Mr. Chairman, the minister, I believe, published a memo that was produced by the B.C. Development Corporation, indicating that something like 31 companies had left the province since 1972, and as a result, directly or indirectly, we had lost 8,000 jobs in British Columbia. They say it because they only table the abridged memorandums from this report. But some of the major reasons given in that memo, according to the minister, were the cost of labour in Canada relative to other areas of North America and relative to other parts of the world, and the number of labour disputes we have here — in general the labour problems of British Columbia. And it seems that those types of sentiments are reflected by other cabinet ministers: the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) asking that we return to the 40-hour work week and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), saying in his recent budget speech that labour should restrain their demands, that we should tighten our belts and demand a lot less and work a lot harder. That's the solution to the economic problems of British Columbia.

The Minister of Human Resources is going around the province saying that we should arm people with shovels, as if that's the solution to our economic problems. He said that when he became Minister of Human Resources he was going to give everybody — all of those unemployed employable — shovels and put them back to work. Well, the last guy who armed people with shovels ended up marching into the Rhineland, as I recall, and he kept the rest of the country occupied for five or six years.

It seems that every cabinet minister in this government has reflected that kind of anti-labour sentiment: that labour should demand less, that labour should work harder, and that the reason why we were losing our competitive position was that labour was demanding far too much. I was reading through a few newspaper articles and some information relating to one of the reasons why products produced here in British Columbia have lost their competitive position in markets throughout the

[ Page 838 ]

world. I'd like to read an editorial from the Oakland Tribune. It's a newspaper in California that relies, in large measure, on paper that is produced right here in British Columbia. In fact, MacMillan Bloedel ships paper down to San Francisco harbour to provide newsprint for the Oakland Tribune. Here's that editorial, Mr. Chairman:

"When MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., the world's largest supplier of newsprint, announced the latest intolerable round of newsprint price increases, it set off a new round of reprehensible inflationary trends. There is no way that the paper industry can justify its increase of 78.6 per cent in the past three years. That 26.2 per cent per year price hike does not reflect the cost of labour contracts, raw material, or inflation in general. What it does reflect is the rip-off attitude of a group of companies that have a stranglehold on the newspaper industry. It is not just the Oakland Tribune, the New York Times and the Washington Post that suffer; it hurts advertisers and consumers badly."

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), in going around the province and speaking to business groups, have attempted to persuade those groups that it's the cost of labour, Mr. Chairman, that is causing the problems of British Columbia losing its competitive position in world markets, which relates to economic development.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Shame! What a jerk!

Interjections.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): He's not a jerk?

MR. SKELLY: Those ministers are attempting to blame labour for the fact that British Columbia's products are losing their competitive position in the marketplace, and in fact the people who receive our products in those foreign markets say that it's not attributable to labour, it's not attributable to inflation, and it's not attributable to the high cost of raw materials. It's attributable to a group of rip-off companies who have a stranglehold on the industry — a series of companies who have a corner on the newsprint market. That's the main reason, Mr. Chairman, why we are losing our competitive position worldwide, and yet the government over there attempts to blame labour and a decline in productivity in Canada for the loss of our markets worldwide.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's the Oakland Tribune, Mr. Minister of Education.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Oakland Tribune, the Auburn Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Do you know the Washington Post exposed a friend of yours?

MR. SKELLY: In attacking labouring groups in British Columbia, they also quote statistics that productivity in Canada has declined, or else has grown less than in any other of the developed countries throughout the world. Again, that's a myth that they are attempting to use to confuse people in this province and to attack the labouring people of this province. As a matter of fact, statistics that were released by the C.D. Howe Research Institute point out that Canadian productivity and manufacturing industries have risen higher in this country than in the United States during the years from 1969 to 1975. Those were statistics released by a private, free-enterprise research group.

Revised statistics show productivity gains in Canada's manufacturing sector compared with those of the United States during 1969 to 1974 which disproves the widely held belief that Canadian productivity had been lagging behind the U.S. The new statistics reveal that U.S. productivity output per man-hour increased by an annual average of 1.5 per cent a year between 1969 to 1974 while Canada's manufacturing productivity increased by an annual average of 2.9 per cent during the same period in the manufacturing industry.

MR. BARRETT: Attack the workers again!

MR. SKELLY: Always attacking the workers on that side. Always attacking labour. Always attacking the productivity and the hard work of Canadian and British Columbia working people in particular.

MR. BARRETT: Who are you going to sell cars to?

MR. LEA: Half of you would go out of business if you couldn't sell cars.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to ask the minister, with your permission, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), if he would table in full the study done by the B.C. Development Corporation. It's strange that the study by the Development Corporation only

[ Page 839 ]

covered the years between 1972 and 1975. Surely it couldn't have been politically motivated! Why were those years selected rather than the whole spectrum of British Columbia's history? Why were the years 1972 to 1975 selected? I would ask the minister to table the report in full and give us the full details on that report. While he's at it, if he has any figures prior to 1972, we'd like to see those as well.

Newspaper reports just recently indicate that although during the years 1972 to 1975, if the minister's report is correct, we lost 8,000 jobs, in the last month, according to Statistics Canada we lost 20,000. There are 20,000 more people unemployed in this province than there were one month prior to the recent release of Statistics Canada material. Twenty thousand jobs — at that rate something like 90 companies would have had to leave the province under two years of Social Credit government. So I would ask the minister if he's willing to release the BCDC report on companies which left the province between 1972 and 1975, and if he would be willing to table additional material that would give us a broader historical perspective on companies which have left the province and the reasons they left.

I was disturbed, Mr. Chairman, to read in the Vancouver Sun tonight an article which indicates that the B.C. Energy Commission — again, this relates to the minister's vote because he is a member of the energy committee of cabinet — has recommended to the government that the pipeline from Kitimat to Edmonton be built, and that one of the bargaining points in the approval of this pipeline by the government is that we will trade off the environment of the north coast of British Columbia in exchange for assurances of Alberta crude oil and offshore crude oil during the coming years.

According to this article in the Vancouver Sun, that Energy Commission report was available to cabinet and to the energy committee of cabinet in September of last year. It appears from the statements by the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) that he is following the recommendations of that report to the letter. In fact, in a speech in Penticton recently the Minister of Economic Development stated that he was 100 per cent behind the Kitimat pipeline proposal. I would just like to outline for the benefit of the House....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Of course, Mein Kempf is behind it as well.

For the benefit of the House, I would just like to outline some of the details of that Kitimat pipeline proposal.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, hon. member, if your colleagues are disturbing you. Please proceed.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. I'd like to outline to the House some of the information relative to the Kitimat pipeline proposal, for those who don't have that information.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You are on the energy committee of cabinet as well, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot). That pipeline, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $400 million to $600 million, is designed to ship crude oil to seven northern-tier American states. If it is approved by July, 1977, it is designed to be operating by April 2, 1979. The company doesn't provide the hour and the minute, but they do provide April 2, 1979, as the date that pipeline is supposed to be in operation.

Mr. Chairman, between 1979 and 1989, the amount of oil through that pipe is expected to increase from 300,000 barrels to 600,000 barrels. None of that crude oil is destined for refineries in British Columbia; none of it is to the advantage of British Columbians. All of that oil will be shipped to northern-tier United States refineries. According to Kitimat Pipe Line Ltd., they have demands on that oil that fully commit the through-put of that pipe right up to the year 1989.

The whole question of oil tankers operating on the British Columbia coast has been brought up in the article in the Vancouver Sun of this afternoon. When the pipeline begins operation, a small number of tankers will be brought through one of the most dangerous areas of the coast of British Columbia, one of the most hazardous areas for navigation.

In the reports by Kitimat Pipeline Ltd, it's anticipated that there will be one major oil spill every four years as a result of tanker traffic in that area. Environment Canada suggests that the oil spill will, depending on the location of the spill, destroy shellfish resources, salmon resources, fisheries resources. It could completely wipe out those resources for periods up to a decade. And, again, that's in the company's own reports.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): What's the Fonz doing about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing. He's combing his hair.

MR. LEA: He's going to spread Brylcreem on oily waters. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Watch out; you're getting Rafe

[ Page 840 ]

upset.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: His idea of an oil slick is when he wakes up and looks at his pillow. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: He's a slick little minister.

MR. SKELLY: Tanker traffic in that area is going to be extremely dangerous.

I lived in the Queen Charlotte Islands for a year; I worked in a mining town in the Queen Charlottes. Some of the people in this area haven't been north of Horsefly, B.C., but I have. I lived in the Queen Charlottes and I know that that's one of the most difficult areas for navigation anywhere on earth. There are winds up to 110 miles an hour, some of the most narrow and tortuous fiords of any coastline on earth — and also some of the most beautiful scenery, some of the most resource-rich areas on earth in terms of the wildlife and in terms of the commercial potential for the fishing industry in that area.

This is what the present government and the federal government are willing to risk in exchange for assurances of Alberta and American crude oil as a result of approving that pipeline. I would like to ask the minister, since he has not answered the question when it was put to him by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson): what is the position of this government on the Kitimat pipeline?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're for it.

MR. SKELLY: Has the energy committee of cabinet approved the Kitimat-to-Edmonton pipeline? Has that been approved? I would also like to ask the minister: if approval hasn't been given by the government, will the minister make representations to cabinet that public hearings be held immediately — not waiting until August after it is anticipated that the pipeline will have been approved by the National Energy Board, but immediately?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think I should point out to you and the member that the pipeline should really come under the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). I'm not directly responsible.

MR. SKELLY: Is the minister on the energy committee of cabinet or not?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, I'm on several committees, but I think you should deal with the chairman of the particular committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It might be better, in the interests....

MR. LEA: What is the government's position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It might be better, in the interests of time in committee, for this to be discussed under the minister directly responsible. Perhaps the member would consent to curtail his....

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this minister stated in a public meeting in Penticton that he was 100 per cent in favour of the construction of the Kitimat pipeline. I'm asking the minister: is that the position of the government? Has the government approved the pipeline construction, and are we dealing with a fait accompli? Has the government approved the Kitimat pipeline?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That appears to be in order.

MR. SKELLY: I'm certain it is.

If it has, I think we should look at the possibility of changing that position. The Kitimat pipeline is extremely dangerous to the environment of the north and central coast of British Columbia. I would ask that minister if he personally approves of the construction of the Kitimat pipeline. Will he change his mind on that project? Will he make representations to cabinet to change their mind on the project, and, if they haven't come to some kind of decision, to change their minds so that they are opposed to the construction of the Kitimat pipeline?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Let's hear a clear statement from that minister on that pipeline.

MR. SKELLY: I'll allow the minister that question. If the minister isn't willing to answer that question, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only way the minister can answer a question is if the speaker will yield the floor.

MR. SKELLY: I did.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Kitimat pipeline, I spent some time this afternoon outlining the government stance on the pipeline. I don't think it needs to be repeated. The member can read it in Hansard.

MR. SKELLY: Is the minister against the pipeline or is he for the pipeline?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, maybe I should state again that I discussed the Kitimat

[ Page 841 ]

pipeline this afternoon in answer to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). It's being repetitious. I think the member can read the answer in Hansard.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why doesn't the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) remain quiet and not get so excited?

MR. BARRETT: You're not Garde. Say yes or no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are going to give Hansard fits here. We do not have....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister.

MR. SKELLY: In a recent speech, the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) stated that he would hold public hearings throughout the province, beginning in August of this year, to discuss the total energy policy of the province. It seems to make no sense that we should wait until August to begin public hearings on the energy policy of this province when a very significant capital project is underway in the northern part of British Columbia. According to the National Energy Board, hearings will begin in May on the Kitimat pipeline; they should be completed by July, 1977. According to the company's own construction schedule, they must begin construction by July or August, 1977, and be completed by April 2, 1979. It's interesting that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications has scheduled the hearings for the month after approval is anticipated for the Kitimat pipeline project by the National Energy Board.

I would like to ask the minister if he would be willing to make representations, because energy is inter-related with economic development, to the Minister of Energy and to the cabinet to hold hearings, beginning immediately, on the whole question of an energy policy for British Columbia, including the construction of the Kitimat pipeline and the advisability of the construction of the pipeline? Will he be willing to make those representations to the minister and to cabinet?

I would like to hear his answer on that question because he has not discussed that this afternoon or at any previous time.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Minister of Economic Development would answer that question. Is he willing to make representations to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications and to the government to hold hearings on the energy policy of British Columbia, beginning immediately, and including the advisability of building the Kitimat pipeline in those public hearings? Is he willing to refer the whole question to the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources of this House so that they can conduct public hearings throughout the province and in this building, to hear representations from all people in this province as to the advisability of building that pipeline and on the question of energy policy for British Columbia as a whole?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that member for Alberni, who is against everything that was ever tried to be started in British Columbia, I would just like to relate that he made a statement that energy is related to economic development. Education is related to economic development. Finance is related to economic development. Indeed, human resources is related to economic development. Consumer affairs is related to economic development. Agriculture is related to economic development. The health and welfare of the province is related to economic development. It doesn't come under my direct jurisdiction.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it was the minister the other day who started pointing around to his colleagues and taking credit for all the jobs that were being produced by the budgets that were allotted to the other portfolios. And now he's taking exception to my hon. colleague questioning him on a very important economic development within this province.

It seems incredible to me, when one realizes the tremendous costs of cleaning up oil spills. The one that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) visited in Spain cost, I think, $32 million. There's no money in the budget to clean up those kinds of oil spills. That's a proper subject to be referred to an all-party committee of this House.

The member for Alberni has risen in his place and given a reasoned, researched speech which is given back-of-the-hand treatment by that minister. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have expected nothing more from him after his performance in his portfolio this year.

Mr. Chairman, last year was an excellent example of the kind of action that this government is undertaking that causes the opposition parties and, indeed, the public of British Columbia a great deal of concern. It was the establishment under the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) of a Crown corporation called the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. At that time opposition members of all three opposition parties went into great detail in pointing out the dangers involved in using massive amounts of public funds that will be tendered by

[ Page 842 ]

contract to various people throughout the province, and the danger of hiding it behind the corporate veil, albeit a Crown corporate veil, that hasn't got the direct review of this Legislature that departmental estimates have.

It is of great concern to all of us that the strict letter of the law be followed in making loans to various community businessmen and operations throughout this province, and there should be no political interference with the expert and professional judgment of those Crown corporations. It is a delicate fiduciary relationship, one in which the minister in charge must protect the public money from being misused by being directed towards the friends of the government of the day.

The hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made an excellent point yesterday in the minister's estimates when he said that that minister, in sitting down with the creditors of Ragan Construction Ltd., was in conflict of interest. The opposition associates itself with the member for Oak Bay's remarks. It was definitely a conflict-of-interest situation. He gets up and objects this afternoon when the member for Oak Bay makes an innocent suggestion that on his disclosure statement a finance company which was one of the creditors of Ragan Construction appears. He took great umbrage that this point was made. Now it so happens that the hon. minister is a debtor, I believe, of the finance company, so that's probably the only thing that he and I have in common. We're both debtors.

But that's not the point. The point is that it was raised to show you the intricacies of an MLA being responsible for a constituency on the one hand and that MLA's solemn responsibility as a minister of the Crown to the public on the other.

This afternoon I asked a question concerning a loan that was authorized by the Development Corporation to a company known as Silverton Construction Ltd. I raised the question for several reasons that point directly to this problem of porkbarrelling, which is always a dangerous situation when any government is in power. You must not confuse your responsibilities as an MLA with your responsibilities as a Crown minister responsible for the budget in your department and the Crown corporations over which you have direction. You must rely on your professionals to advise you correctly, and you must rely on that advice. You must appoint boards that are independent from political interference, and you must allow them to make decisions.

Well, Mr. Chairman, let me refer you to Hansard, April 11, 1975, when the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) rose during the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development. He was criticizing me for not making a loan to a particular company. I'll just read a portion of his remarks at that time. I'll just paraphrase part of it. He said: "This commission was done by Norman Springate Associates." It was a $16,000 commission which looked into a process of using a raw product to build pre-fabricated materials for homes. He goes on to describe it: "After the feasibility study was completed the Department of Economic Development was enthused about the project. They told the gentleman, Mr. Albert Olivier, who was the owner of Silverton Construction, and who conceived this idea, to go to the Development Corporation." He went on for pages on Mr. Oliver, his friend up in the constituency. He went on and on and on.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Read it all? As long as I can read my six-page response!

It was made clear to the hon. member at that time that the loan was not granted by the Development Corporation to this project for two reasons. One was that Mr. Olivier did not have equity, or enough equity, in the project, and that the BCDC, a public corporation, couldn't wholly finance this operation. This was after a long-winded speech by the hon. member.

Well, be that as it may, the government of the day went into an election, his Good Friday turned into a Palm Sunday, and I'm over here and he's over there. And what do we find? We find that Silverton Construction changed its name to Aspen Lok-tite Components Ltd., a rather difficult.... Well, anyway, the Change of Name Act may have something to do with that. The loan was authorized by the Development Corporation to that firm against the advice of the staff of the BCDC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The board of directors, with the minister present, authorized the loan for $200,000 of the taxpayers' money to this operation on substantially the same financial information on which it was turned down before against the recommendation of the staff of the British Columbia Development Corporation. When the loan was given to the staff of the Development Corporation for processing, they refused to process it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Shortly after, one David Lister, who was in charge of the small-loans division, resigned from the corporation.

MR. BARRETT: That's a very serious charge.

MR. LAUK: On October 29, 1976, the minister

[ Page 843 ]

was absent from a board meeting. After some discussion in the board, and because the $200,000 authorized loan was not drawn by Mr. Olivier, they rescinded the loan, in the absence of the minister, Mr. Chairman.

Now what I'm saying is thank God we saved $200,000. Thank God for that. Thank God that some members of the board — and I suspect that they were appointed prior to 1976 — pointed out to the gentlemen of the board that this was an unwise investment. Because the minister in charge of this corporation had a political interest — because it was in his constituency — he interfered with the proper processes of the Development Corporation. Now that is why I raise this issue, Mr. Chairman. How many others are there? Can the minister stand up and tell us that? How many others are there? The minister should stay away from board meetings more often, Mr. Chairman, because, in their wisdom, they caught the error. They stopped $200,000 of the taxpayers' money going into a project that was of the highest possible risk.

MR. BARRETT: Revolving-door minister.

MR. LAUK: These are the kinds of incidents that we were warning about with respect to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. The corporate veil. The board acts in a Star Chamber situation and we don't know who's getting their finger in the pie. We don't know whether it's proper or improper and the only chance we have is in estimates, and this minister is not answering questions. It took me most of the afternoon on the telephone to get this information because the minister would not answer any questions. What do we have to do to get the truth from that minister? We want answers. This is a Crown corporation and public money.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Keep your blood pressure down. You're getting red in the face.

MR. LAUK: Well, I am getting red in the face, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, because $200,000 is being shovelled out of the back of a truck while the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) bleeds the pennies from disabled and people on welfare, and you think that's just great. Give money to your friends; take it away from the disabled. Boy, what a classic philosophy that is. We're not getting through to him, Mr. Chairman. Well, we've got lots of time. We'll get through to you eventually, I'm sure.

While the minister is checking with the chief executive officer of the Development Corporation to see whether indeed the loan was rescinded.... Do you want it reconsidered, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Human Resources says: "Try and make some sense." You're making cents — pennies from the disabled and the handicapped in this province. That's what you're doing, while your colleagues over there, with a fork lift — a front-end loader — are just taking taxes away from the people and then shovelling it out the back of a caboose. That's what he's doing.

MR. BARRETT: You're a disaster.

MR. LEA: Not only that, you'll get caught.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): How much money did you waste in Prince Rupert?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Let's return to the debate. We're on vote 79, and the member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Now, let's talk about the 9.8 acres.

MR. BARRETT: What 9.8 acres? Where?

MR. LAUK: The purchase of lands in the area of Dawson Creek, lands owned by the Canadian National Telecommunications — 9.8 acres plus eight buildings. Now the BCDC was authorized to purchase 9.8 acres in the city of Dawson Creek for the sum of $300,000. I checked at Dawson Creek, and I found out that Dawson Creek has backed out.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your question?

MR. LAUK: The question is: who proposed this? Was it the staff of the BCDC or was it you, Mr. Minister? And why did you propose it? This is in your riding again and the board authorization was clearly not in keeping with the provisions of the Act that established the BCDC. It flew in the face of it. Who's in control of that corporation? There's a difference, Mr. Minister, in being responsible for a corporation and in controlling it. It says:

"That the corporation be authorized to purchase, for a price not exceeding $300,000, the 9.82-acre portion of Lot B, amended plan 3053, and expropriation plan M387 in the southeast quarter, section 21, township 78, range 15 W6M, Peace River District, owned by Canadian National Telecommunications; and that the corporation agree that, for a period of one year after the date of acquisition" — do you get this? — "the corporation shall make the lands available to the city of Dawson Creek to be purchased by it at the corporation's cost of

[ Page 844 ]

acquisition, including all legal and land registry costs in connection therewith, plus 1 per cent thereof per month to the date of sale toDawson Creek provided that should the corporation wish to sell or otherwise dispose...."

Et cetera.

Now what does that mean? They are fronting for the municipality of Dawson Creek. There's no commitment about industrial development. There's no concept of co-venturing to produce jobs. It's a straight deal between the MLA, who's more powerful than the MLAs in his back bench, and his city council — the misuse of public funds.

MR. KING: Shame on you! You should resign!

MR. LAUK: Now it seems to me that this goes on and on — that the minister cannot separate in his mind his responsibilities as an MLA and his responsibilities as a Crown minister. You have no right, sir, to use the public funds for your own porkbarrelling in your constituency. Oh, how self-righteous you were giving me this comment about Mr. Olivier during my estimates. Now you've learned it's a little bit more difficult than just talk to be a Crown minister. You can't pop up every day with all the solutions.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Like you are.

MR. LAUK: You can't stand there day after day talking about long-range plans as an excuse for your own ineptitude.

I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that you get off the board altogether. Let the corporation handle the affairs of the corporation. Try and provide what little judgment you have left if you like, but as a single member of the board you do not bring down jackboot interference with the board in granting these kinds of loans to your constituency friends...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: ...Mr. Chairman, through you, to the minister.

While I regard what I have just said with the utmost sincerity and seriousness, there is a time for levity. The press gallery, it seems, is a little tired of hearing about railways. I've received this note from an unnamed member of the press gallery, and it states: "What sin did you commit" — it's addressed to me — "that forces you to sit here as punishment every day?"

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Three and a half years of sins.

MR. LAUK: It goes on:

"Did you ever think that one day a story will be run in the Vancouver Sun that says: 'Victoria (CP)' — that's a little dig there — 'Veteran NDP MLA Gary Lauk asked Premier W.A.C. Bennett IV whether or not the Nick Mussallem royal commission would examine the MEL Paving case.

"'I can't dictate anything,' replied Attorney-General Jack Kempf. 'You can't even read anything,' taunted Lauk, 76 yesterday. Outside the House he vowed to get to the bottom of MEL no matter how long it takes.

"'The firm went out of business 18 years ago when president Don Phillips put it into receivership. Mr. Phillips, who lives in the Grizzly Valley, wouldn't comment.'"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll try to get you absolution for your sins. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Have you got a pipeline, Mr. Chairman?

MR. SKELLY: After that light note, the minister didn't respond to any of the previous questions. He hasn't responded at all during this whole debate on his estimates, but he tends to comment on the questions that are asked and the points that are brought up. In doing so after my previous question, he said that the member for Alberni had been against any development in this province ever since I became an MLA, which is not true. I was for the Land Commission Act and the Farm Income Assurance Act, which guaranteed the survival of the agricultural industry in this province. I voted in favour of that. The minister voted against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: I voted in favour of the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. How did the minister vote on that?

MR. LAUK: How did he vote on the BCDC?

MR. SKELLY: Where is the B.C. Savings and Trust Corporation now — a company that would have provided financial assistance to small businesses in this province, a company that would have provided needed banking services to the people of British Columbia? Where's the report on that? The government suppressed it. They're sitting on it.

I voted in favour of the B.C. Development Corporation, again a corporation designed and functioning to assist small businesses in British Columbia. I was in favour of that corporation. How did the minister vote on that?

[ Page 845 ]

The development of a copper smelter in British Columbia that previous Social Credit government had been promising for years and years and years as an election campaign promise. Every election they recycled that promise to develop a copper smelter in British Columbia. When the previous Minister of Economic Development finally made it a reality, I supported that.

The development of a primary steel industry in the province that would have created thousands of jobs in British Columbia, that would have put some of those 112,000 people who are now out of work into jobs — the minister went to Japan and scuttled it just a few months ago. I was in favour of that.

What about the purchase of Columbia Cellulose from an American corporation? The repatriation of that company and the forest resources that were given by the previous Social Credit government to that company — I was in favour of that. Purchase of Ocean Falls Corporation. Those two acts saved thousands of jobs in British Columbia — hundreds directly. How was the minister on that? The minister has been negative.

He has voted against every single positive Act which created economic growth and development in this province. It's unbelievable that he's even Minister of Economic Development. He accuses the member for Alberni of being negative simply because I expressed an interest in saving the natural environment of the north and central coast of this province from a pipeline which even the developers admit will result in a major oil spill every four years.

All I asked the minister was: will he advocate, to his cabinet colleagues and to the government, public hearings to be held throughout the province through a standing committee of the Legislature, the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources, on which his government has a majority of members? Will the minister advocate to cabinet that the whole question of an energy policy for British Columbia, including the Kitimat pipeline, be referred to that select standing committee, and that that standing committee be empowered to hold public hearings throughout the province before the National Energy Board hearings? In fact, will he propose to the federal government that those hearings be held off until that Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources makes its report? I would appreciate it if the minister would answer those questions.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I am disappointed that the minister doesn't seem to be taking an interest in responding to the member for Alberni's questions with respect to this pipeline. Surely he must recognize that if the entire fishing industry of this coast is destroyed by the oil spills that are predicted to happen, it will have an effect on the economy of British Columbia. Therefore I fail to understand why he keeps getting up and saying, "Oh, well, it really isn't my department. It really has nothing to do with me," even though he sits on the cabinet committee. I feel that minister is obligated to answer the questions that are posed on that serious issue which is now facing the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes ago the minister, I felt, returned to his usual self. He hasn't been himself for a long, long time in this House. I remember when he stood on this side of the House and spoke hour after hour after hour, raising his voice, shouting at the top of his lungs. There were times in this Legislature when I felt I might have to go to apply to the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to their hearing programme — that's when they had a hearing programme at the Workers' Compensation Board. Those were in the good old days.

He's been very subdued and cowed. But just a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, the minister returned to his normal self, I thought. He sat there chuckling away when the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was talking about how this government has been squeezing the nickels and the pennies out of the senior citizens and the handicapped people of the province. He sat there and snickered to himself. But now he is back to his new, subdued self, studiously reading a report.

I can't quite figure out what has caused this big change in the minister, Mr. Chairman. Is it the Grizzlygate thing? Is it the MEL Paving? Is it that this job is too much for him? I know when he held two portfolios — Agriculture and Economic Development — nothing was happening in either. Now he has one portfolio and nothing is happening in Economic Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Agriculture.

MS. SANFORD: Or Agriculture.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if perhaps he doesn't have any influence in cabinet any more and if any recommendations he makes to cabinet at this stage just go unheeded. Maybe that's why he is not answering the question about making representations to his cabinet colleagues about that pipeline. Is the Premier shunning him, or have the city Liberals taken over in that cabinet and pushed that member aside? He used to be very close to the Premier, very vocal in the House, a very close associate — something has happened.

Mr. Chairman, the attitude of that government toward economic development in this province means that we will go on being hewers of wood and drawers of water because no development of secondary industry is going to take place under that minister. You know, he came back from Japan and smilingly told the press: "Oh, no. We're not going to have a

[ Page 846 ]

steel mill, but we might be able to ship out some more coal." They stand around and wring their hands and hope that the international corporations will come and extract our raw resources and ship them out. The only thing they have done is to give the $30 million succession duty relief to those people who don't need it in the hope that someone somewhere might invest a little money here in British Columbia as a result of it. We know that that's not going to happen. Even Bill Hamilton of the Employers Council has indicated that that's not going to make any difference in terms of the development of the economy of British Columbia. But maybe they have a subservience to the international corporations because they rely on them so heavily for funds at election time. Maybe that's why he's doing nothing about economic development and the development of secondary industry in this province.

I would like to commend the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) for his suggestions with respect to an economic council for the greater Victoria area. You know, it's unfortunate when a member elected to the opposition has to take the initiative in this province to get anything going for the people he represents. He has taken the initiative on this. You have done nothing, Mr. Minister, about the unemployment that exists here in Victoria and on Vancouver Island. All you have done is contribute to it with the increases in sales tax, ferry rates and income tax.

I'm pleased that the second member for Victoria has made this proposal. I only hope that the people who represent the constituencies throughout the province will take some initiative, because there is no initiative coming from that department. They even did away with any advice that they had by doing away with the Economic Policy Analysis Institute, because they could do it all themselves. They don't need any advice at all. If we can get the kind of community involvement that the second member for Victoria is talking about, then perhaps we will avoid a depression even more serious than the one we're now facing.

I would like to ask the minister specifically about the development of an industrial park which was purchased by the B.C. Development Corporation at Port Hardy. This was purchased just before the last election. It is an ideal area for industrial development. The council up at Port Hardy has been working very hard trying to promote some development in that industrial park, but has been told time and time again: "No, you'll have to wait. There aren't funds. There are other priorities." And they are still waiting.

They want some development up in Port Hardy area and they keep appealing to the B.C. Development Corporation, to the minister, to myself — wherever they can — in order to get some action going on the development of that industrial park, which happens to be a natural deep-sea port and has great potential in the view of the people up there. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to comment on that when he gets up to answer any questions, if he's going to do that.

The only other concern that I have at the moment relates to the extremely high levels of unemployment that we now see. The latest figures indicate that more and more young people will have to go off to Alberta, to Saskatchewan, to other provinces in order to find work. Still we have seen nothing from that department with respect to creating the kind of jobs that must be created now.

Mr. Chairman, the economic policy of this government, by centralizing all of the money by taking any disposable income that working people might have out of their pockets, means the unemployment rate is going to go higher. It will go higher yet, while this government collects a soft cushion of funds which they will be able to use at election time. Mr. Minister, can you not, at this time, introduce some kind of a programme for employment that can go into effect immediately? I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to comment on that as well.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Port Hardy industrial park, before I comment on it I would like to find out exactly what is happening. I know both our own department and the British Columbia Development Corporation are looking into it and I would like to get you a complete and up-to-date report before I comment on it. With regard to programmes to create unemployment....

MS. SANFORD: We've got lots of those.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know if you were in the House, Mr. Member, but I've gone over this several times and, as I stated, one of the problems that we have with the economy today is that governments have been putting bubble-gum patches on the economy — make-work programmes, LIP. You know the whole situation. They do not help in the long run. What we have to do is come up with policies and that's what we're working on, as you know: policies that will create employment and create profits for taxes so that we can have the services that the people of this province deserve and will have.

MR. SKELLY: The minister didn't answer the questions on the Kitimat pipeline. It's unfortunate that in a public meeting at Penticton he's willing to take a stand on the pipeline but he's not willing to make any comments in the House. He talks about

[ Page 847 ]

developing a long-range policy — but he hasn't told us a thing about it. He hasn't enlightened us as to how he is going about drafting this economic plan. Who's doing it? Is it the bureaucrats in the ivory towers in Victoria about whom he always spoke when he was in opposition? Who's drafting this economic plan? Where is it? What are the components? What's the machinery he's using to draft the economic plan for British Columbia — this master plan that he's going to come up with — over the long-term, I guess it is.

Why not adopt the policy that was adopted in Washington and Oregon where Governor Dan Evans in Washington state decided that he would contact the people of Washington state and find out what kind of a state they wanted and what kind of economic development they wanted in Washington state. The same was done in Oregon. The same was done in other states in the United States. In a plan that he called "Alternatives for Washington," they went around and held seminars throughout the States and they asked for public input. They convened meetings of experts in economic development.

What has the minister done in any public way to develop an economic plan, a long-term plan for British Columbia? Certainly the people of this province must be consulted whatever the plan is. After all, it's the economy that serves the people, not the people who serve the economy. We should be going to the people to find out what type of plan they want for British Columbia. It shouldn't be developed by bureaucrats down here in Victoria. It shouldn't be developed in universities in closed situations where the people have no opportunity to comment on it.

What are you going to do? How is the plan being developed? Just a few seconds ago I asked for public hearings on energy policy for the province — public hearings that would be convened through the Standing Committee on Environment and Resources that would include all aspects of energy policy for British Columbia, including the Kitimat pipeline. The minister refuses to answer the question. He refuses to enlighten us as to how this economic plan of his is being developed.

When he was in the East Kootenays with the former minister of Mines and Forests — now the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — and that Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot), he was talking about coal developments and demanding that environmental restrictions on coal development be lifted so that that development could proceed. Maybe you were misquoted in the Kimberley Daily Bulletin. But he was demanding that environmental restrictions be lifted from coal development. He also said that regional districts would not be consulted. An arrogant minister says that regional districts would not be consulted. Those people closest to the development would not be consulted until he considered the time was appropriate. Is that the type of economic planning that's going on in British Columbia under Social Credit? Who is being consulted? What experts? What public meetings are being convened so that the people of this province can have some input into the development of the economy in their own province?

What is taking place in the development of economic planning in British Columbia? What's the machinery in it? How is the minister going about it? Will the public of British Columbia have an opportunity to make suggestions and to have input into that economic planning process? Because after all, Mr. Minister, as I say, it's the people and not the other way around.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I remember when I first came into the House last year and the Minister of Economic Development used to sit right across from me. He was then also the Minister of Agriculture. We had some rather hectic exchanges at times last year. But last year I never used to have to look across to his chair to know whether or not that minister was in the House. From the minute he walked in the door until the time he walked out, we could pretty well be sure whether or not he was here, because if he wasn't on his feet speaking, he was shouting remarks across the floor, or talking, or.... We always knew he was here. He was very vociferous, very much in evidence. He had a sort of irrepressible kind of energy that just expelled itself all over this House. But my how times have changed!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You make him sound like a case of measles!

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it was maybe a little like a case of measles, but it wasn't very contagious, I'm afraid. Anyway, things are very different this year. We never hear him say much of anything. A few times he has sort of come out of his shell and attempted to respond to some of the remarks that have been made on this side of the House in his estimates. But really, that former member who used to stand in his place.... The words would just flow out, his mouth in overdrive and his mind in neutral, on and on, hour after hour. I wasn't here when he made his famous 22-hour speech. I listened with great interest as my colleagues — sincerely, I am convinced — on this side of the House have raised point after point after point, looking for answers. Those answers have not been forthcoming.

Some of those charges are very serious charges, but the minister chooses not to answer. Now if it were the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I wouldn't be surprised. My first introduction to estimates discussions in this House was when we discussed the Minister of Finance's estimates last year. He sat there

[ Page 848 ]

very silently through it all and never said a word. He said about two sentences at the end, and that was it. But that was not the style of the Minister of Economic Development, and I'm frankly very disappointed, Mr. Chairman, at the kind of responses we're getting this year.

Some of my colleagues on this side of the House have gone back in Hansard to the time when he was in opposition, and they have read quotes from the things he has said when he was in opposition. Well, I don't propose to do that, Mr. Chairman, but I did go back to last year. I have a couple of quotes from Hansard of last year during that minister's estimates. On May 6 last year, the Hon. Mr. Phillips said: "You know, Mr. Chairman, there was a strong economy in British Columbia in 1972." It carried on, and so on, and so on — all the old harangue. Then he goes on: "But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that already" — this was May 6, 1976 — "there are strong indications that the attitude towards British Columbia is changing. Industry is coming back, and we're establishing strong policies that will see this great province again be an economically viable province." That was May 6, and this year he's saying the same thing.

He goes on:

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that British Columbia, and indeed, Canada, has to be a trading nation or economically we will fail. We have to be a trading nation, and we have to become more aggressive in that area. it's sort of ironic to talk about building up a secondary manufacturing base in the province of British Columbia unless we're prepared to go out and capture those markets.

That's what he said on May 6, 1976, so I would expect that he would have moved to go out and capture those markets. Well, it's interesting to note.

I have here a couple of bulletins that are put out by his department. "Trade and Industry Bulletin Department of Economic Development, Hon. Don Phillips, Minister, December, 1976," lists export opportunities. Do you know how many there were in December, 1976? Five. But how many import opportunities were there? Twenty-eight. That's how we're building the export economy.

That was December. How about January? It's even worse in January, Mr. Chairman. There were three export opportunities, and still 28 import opportunities. That's what the minister has done to build our export market. We stood in his place last year and waxed very loud and very profound about what he was going to do. Here we are almost a year later and we have, in January, three export opportunities. That's the best he can do — three export opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's doing his best.

MRS. WALLACE: The same day, May 6, this same minister said.... I'm quoting again from Hansard. He's talking now in response to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson).

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't donate to the rest of Canada. But why should we send those tax dollars down to Ottawa and then go down on our hands and knees to get them back? Why not take a look at that? Realize that I'm treading on another jurisdiction of federal-provincial relations and so on. But in four separate programmes we're going to put those DREE dollars in direct subsidy to industry. We're going to use those DREE dollars all we can to assist with our infrastructure and our railroads and our roads and so on.

Sounds great. That's the hon. Minister of Economic Development last year. So I thought, well, let's see what he's done. And do you know, I had people from our research branch phoning for the better part of half a day to his department, trying to find out what he had accomplished and how much money had come in as a result of these strong representations and these very sincere and worthwhile sentiments that he'd expressed. And do you know that that department couldn't give us a clue as to how much had come in? I'm hoping the minister can tell me tonight. Certainly his department can't tell us what he has achieved in the way of dollars under the DREE regulations.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): He hasn't resigned yet?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot of talk about the economic condition of this province, whether it's up or down, or where it's going. The thing that I'm concerned about is the situation in the forest industries. We have a situation in my own constituency where the excess of chips is causing very severe employment problems. That Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), that Mr. Chips, is going down for the third time under a pile of wood chips in this province of British Columbia. What are you going to do about it, Mr. Minister of Economic Development? You are charged in the throne speech with co-ordinating the various enterprises and activities. What are you planning to do about it? What are you coming up with in the way of some kind of concrete programmes and policies and enterprises and development that is going to help our No. 1 industry here in the province of British Columbia?

In the Province last month, January 26, there's quite an article relative to the pulp situation, where the pulp mills in this province are operating at three-quarters or even less load because of the surplus of pulp. Now, Mr. Minister, it's all well and good to say that we're in a depressed economic situation, and you used the word "depression" the other night. I was

[ Page 849 ]

very surprised to hear you use that word. That was one thing that you said that was correct. That's right; we are in an economic depression. And it's not good enough to just stand there and weep and wring your hands and say that we're in an economic depression. You have a responsibility, Mr. Minister, to this province.

As soon as I have the minister's attention, I would like to ask him to make a note and to let us know what he does propose to do as far as the forest industry is concerned.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ask the Minister of Forests.

MRS. WALLACE: Now I'm talking about the Minister of Forests, he says. Well, Mr. Chairman, the throne speech says it. If he doubts my word, I would suggest that he refer to the text of the throne speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps you would get a more direct answer from the Minister of Forests when his estimates come up. Deal with the Minister of Economic Development, vote 79.

MR. LAUK: It couldn't be any worse than the answer we're getting now.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, as far as vote 79 goes, the Minister of Economic Development is charged in the throne speech with the responsibility for spearheading a co-ordinated effort on the part of all ministries of government.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense. The Premier wouldn't even take him to Ottawa.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's what he says in the throne speech. I am suggesting, through you, Mr. Chairman, that as the co-ordinator of such a programme, I would like an answer from the Minister of Economic Development as to what he is proposing jointly and coordinately with these other ministries on the forest industry. That is our No. 1 industry; and as the forest industry goes, so goes B.C. I suggest it does relate to vote 79, Mr. Chairman.

The member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) this afternoon touched on what Victoria is doing relative to economic development. I would suggest that this is something that is being done throughout the province. There are groups of desperate people, because of lack of leadership and lack of support from this government and from that minister, that are banding together to try and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and they're getting little or no support from that minister.

I have a clipping relative to Terrace, where they formed the Terrace Development Corporation. They're working in Terrace, where there's 30 per cent unemployment — and the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) will bear me out on this. They have formed their own development corporation, trying to do on their own and without any assistance what this government should be spearheading.

In my own area we have formed the Central Island Community Development Corporation. This is a group of some eight individuals who have given of their time, money, effort, knowledge and skills and have formed a development corporation.

I'd like to read some of the aims and objectives of this corporation. The purpose and goals of the company are as follows, Mr. Minister:

"To establishing develop community-controlled enterprises, social services and cultural activities initiated and implemented for and by the unemployed and the underemployed of central Vancouver Island.

"To provide funding for potentially profitable enterprises in which the company will maintain such ownership or control as is specified in each individual contract.

"To ensure that the enterprises provide jobs and opportunities that lead to personal growth and development.

"To ensure that the enterprises sponsored by the company will be for the benefit of its employees, the unemployed and the underemployed, and the community at large."

Those are some of the objectives of this corporation, Mr. Minister. That minister has said that we are always tearing down, that we never offer anything constructive on this side of the House. I am pointing to this development corporation, a community body of eight citizens in the area who are setting up and carrying on their own the sort of thing that that minister could be doing on a much larger, much broader, and an even more effective scale. And it's not that this isn't being effective. It is being effective. They're onto their first industry now and it was televised the other night. I think groups like this are to be complimented. But it is a shameful disgrace when the ministry in charge of economic development is not willing and able to give some leadership to these kinds of groups and to extend that kind of thing throughout the province so we do have jobs and opportunities for the unemployed and the underemployed. I would like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he will consider such a programme.

There's one more point that I want to make, and then I'll sit down and ask the minister if he will answer some of the questions. That is in regard to job training and job creation. I notice in the Vancouver Sun tonight the following headline: "Skilled Labour Lack Tops Difficulties." It's a recent report from Statistics Canada, and it goes on to point out that

[ Page 850 ]

skilled labour is in demand. There is a shortage of skilled labour in Canada. Interestingly enough, smaller companies feel that pinch to a greater degree than larger companies. For example, smaller companies felt the pinch of skilled labour shortages most with 19 per cent of the companies saying they have difficulty. There were only about 10 per cent of large firms that reported a shortage in skilled labour. There is also working-capital shortage, and again it's the small companies that are feeling the pinch the greatest.

The minister may well refer me to the Department of Education on this one or the Department of Labour and tell me that it's their responsibility to provide this training information. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to that minister that without firm long-range, specific long-range economic planning, we can't know and train ahead of time. We have to know if we're going to need sewage engineers, or technical people in the field of pollution control, or in the field of aeronautics, or whatever that minister is planning. Until he can plan specifically and tell us specifically what he is planning, there is no way that we are going to be able to embark on the kind of training programmes that we should be embarking on. Unfortunately, the minister has gone again, but I would ask that his deputy take note that I would like to know whether or not he can give us some idea of the type of training programmes that we should be embarking on in order to fulfil the needs that will be created by these much-touted long-range plans he's been telling us about.

What are those plans? What positions will be available and what plans are being made to train our own local people to fill those needs when those plans are instigated — if they ever are. I become a little doubtful whether or not they are going to be because we've had nothing definite on those things.

I have just one final point before I sit down, and that is to express my concern to that minister about the position in which his ministry finds itself. There is no one ministry in that whole cabinet bench that is more important to the welfare of this province than is the Ministry of Economic Development.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Highways.

MRS. WALLACE: The Attorney-General says Highways is the important one. Well, that's obvious in the eyes of that government. It's a road-building government. That's the only thing they know in terms of economic development.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Fixing some potholes you left behind.

MRS. WALLACE: Why is it, I wonder, that Highways is a perfectly legitimate place to spend money and yet we can't spend money on ferries? We can't take government moneys and put them into ferries.

We can't put government funds into anything that is going to create a more attractive form of livelihood for the people of British Columbia because we have to leave those things to private enterprise. But that government is very committed to spending money on highways, I grant you.

I would like to know from that minister how he decides what it's all right for government to do. Apparently it's all right for government to put up buildings, court houses — libraries even. Through the Department of Education and with the help of the local taxpayer, it's all right to build schools. But it's not all right to do things that are going to in any way infringe on the private sector. I would like to know how that minister decides what it is that B.C. can do as a government, what it is that they can do under their Crown corporations, and what it is that are no-noes?

How does he draw those lines? How does he decide? Does he just wake up in the morning and say, well, we won't do this or we will do that? Or does he have some criteria, some guidelines? How does he decide what is to be done by the government in cabinet, what is to be turned over to a Crown corporation, and what is to be left for private enterprise? How does he decide that? I'm really curious about that one.

The business editor of the Vancouver Sun recently pinpointed my feelings about this department at this point in time very clearly. I'm not going to quote it in total, but the text of his remarks was that the business community has lost faith in the Department of Economic Development. He has indicated that because of the problems that have been going on in that department, the business community is very loath to take any confidential information to that department. I suggest that in the face of this attitude on the part of the business community and in this very depressed economic time that, for the very welfare of our province, there have to be some changes.

I feel sorry for that Minister of Economic Development; I really do feel sorry for him. I believe it is a cruel and a callous cabinet that would put a colleague in such a position. That minister has not only lost the confidence of the business community; that minister has lost the confidence of the people of British Columbia. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that loss of confidence extends to the very heart of the cabinet. That minister is in an untenable position. He is handicapped; he is hog-tied. He cannot fulfil the charges which he has been given in the throne speech. He cannot fulfil those charges because of the loss of

[ Page 851 ]

confidence.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the interests of the welfare of this province, he step aside temporarily and allow someone to take over who can restore that confidence and can move the province ahead. I'm not suggesting that he is guilty of anything, Mr. Chairman. I feel sorry for that minister. He has been put in an impossible position where it is impossible for him to do his job. The only way to correct that position is to step aside and let someone else take over until the whole ministry is clear. I would ask the minister to comment on those points and to answer my questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting to hear the long dissertation which the member just made. She said she'd phoned all over everywhere to find out what we were doing to develop trade markets abroad. I would suggest that she go back and read my opening statement where I outlined it very carefully. But since she's spent — what did she say? — she had half of the caucus and research trying to find the information. They phoned all over everywhere. I want to tell you, you'd better hire some new research people over there because it's right in my opening statement, and I'll read it to you:

In the current fiscal year, 1976-1977, the people of B.C. invested $552,000 in the objective of creating foreign markets. Partial returns for this year's activities indicate new business orders from foreign markets in excess of $15 million, adequate to sustain an estimated 500 jobs here in British Columbia. There are potential sales under negotiations at the present time to sustain an additional 2,000 jobs.

So you'd better hire some new researchers. You'd better hire some new research assistants in that caucus.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I rise in protest tonight. I have listened to 19 speakers from the opposition, and I don't think I have heard one person come up with anything constructive. We have been here for several days now, hour after hour, listening to the speeches, harangues and personal attacks on the minister, but really there has been nothing constructive.

I would like to point out to you that in my mind, and I am a relatively new member to the House, the role of the opposition is not only to attack — and attack you must do — but to do something about helping us. Give us some constructive criticism. I haven't seen anything from you.

MR. BARBER: You weren't here. Do you want to read this speech? Do you want to know what we're doing in Victoria?

MR. STRONGMAN: In my estimation, the tack that has been taken so far has been without value to the House, without value to the government and the minister, but above all, without value to the people who elected you and elected us. With the exception of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), I haven't heard a speaker who has done anything to really help the minister in the one area that we need help in, and everyone in this province needs help in, and that is in the economic development of the province.

Tonight I intend to be constructive. I hope that the opposition might follow my lead and perhaps do some thinking that is meaningful to the province, not meaningful to their personal political ambitions.

MR. BARBER: We've already taken the lead.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you haven't.

MR. BARBER: Do you want to read it?

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Member, you are so far behind you'll never catch up.

The Ministry of Economic Development is likely one of the most important ministries that is in the hands of government right now. We in this province are not growing to the extent that any of us would like. That responsibility for the growth we are looking for rests on the shoulders of the ministry. I think that all of us should come forth with ideas to help in the economic recovery of the province.

The economy of British Columbia since Confederation has been dependent on two or three major industries. For generations governments have attempted to entice secondary industry into British Columbia. It is my considered opinion that our economic recovery is dependent on broadening our economic base, and in so doing decreasing our dependence on a few resource industries. The question that has confounded governments is: how do you entice industries into this province? We have the highest wage rates in North America, and I don't think there is a legislator in this hall who would really ever want, or even ever suggest, that we roll them back. We've got them; let's do something with them.

We are isolated from our major markets not only by distance, but by three mountain ranges and a large ocean. There is an answer, though, and that answer is that we have to out-hustle other areas to attract industry into this province. Believe me, we are in competition with other areas to get industry into the province. There are other areas in North America that have much more attractive plans than we have in this province. Tonight I am going to attempt to give you some ideas and some of the research that I've done in the past to give an indication of what is available elsewhere and what we should do to make our province more appealing economically.

[ Page 852 ]

MR. LAUK: You should be the minister.

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the areas that is of great concern to people wishing to invest in this province is the very high cost of serviced industrial land. In the city of Vancouver, or in the lower mainland area, serviced industrial land for medium, moderate or light industry is going at an asking price of $150,000 an acre. That is not an outside price; that happens to be an average price. In fact, there have been trades in the city of Vancouver of smaller parcels — an acre, an acre-and-a-half — that have gone for as high as $200,000 an acre. In fact, the municipal government of the city of Vancouver, has sold land at that price for industrial development within the confines of Vancouver.

MR. LAUK: Right now it's at its low end of the scale.

MR. STRONGMAN: What we have to realize is that there are areas elsewhere in North America that provide land at costs far lower than what's available in the lower mainland of British Columbia. New Mexico — $40,000 an acre for serviced land. California — many acres in northern California, areas not far from Los Angeles and San Francisco — $40,000 an acre.

MR. LAUK: New Mexico?

MR. STRONGMAN: Georgia, New York state. I have first-hand knowledge that in New York state you can acquire land for $30,000 an acre serviced. Toronto — $50,000 an acre, and that's an outside price. I know of land that's sold in the Toronto area in the last two years for $25,000 an acre on railroad siding for heavy industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Member, I can substantiate that, if you'd like to talk to me after this.

MR. LAUK: Too low. But you're on the right track.

MR. STRONGMAN: Governments are going to have to, and this government is going to have to bring land on stream at prices that people in other jurisdictions are going to look at favourably. We can't bury our heads in the sand and expect people to come out here because we have a nice climate, a beautiful province to live in, and pay three and four times the land values that are found elsewhere.

To me, Mr. Minister, we should be looking at working with municipalities, attempting to bring industrial land on stream — and of all the commodities we have in this province, we have land — that can be purchased by investors elsewhere at competitive prices, prices similar to the ones I just outlined that are available elsewhere in North America.

Municipal taxes.

MR. LAUK: Don't blow it!

MR. STRONGMAN: There are many jurisdictions, not unlike the ones I mentioned before — I won't repeat them again — that provide moratoriums on municipal taxes or a softening of municipal taxes for new people, new investors. I'm talking not just for one or two years. In New York state alone there are plans that will allow investors a moratorium or a softening of tax for up to 20 years.

MR. LAUK: A bad example. Have you seen New York?

MR. STRONGMAN: I can think of several regions I know of first-hand that also provide financing over and above what's available in the private sector. They do this through bond financing at competitive interest rates to a point where capital investment on land, improvements and equipment can be covered up to 90 per cent at favourable interest rates, half of it covered by the private sector, almost half again by municipal bond issues at favourable interest rates.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Isn't that socialism?

MR. STRONGMAN: These are the programmes, Mr. Minister, that I think we should be looking at. I think that if we're going to look at them, we have to also make sure we're competitive with areas elsewhere.

MR. LAUK: I thought you were against welfare.

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the things we have going for us — and I think that to develop this properly, one will have to consider it carefully — are high interest rates in this country. The very fact that we have high interest rates does allow us to promote bond issues at interest rates that are far more attractive than interest rates in other jurisdictions. So there is a possibility of floating bond issues, and these bond issues again can go a long way in helping to finance companies that wish to enter our market, companies with attractive track records, companies that have been successful elsewhere. I'm not talking about someone who has not been in business before; I'm talking about people who have established themselves and wish to come into this market.

[ Page 853 ]

MR. LAUK: Strongman for minister — he's the man.

MR. STRONGMAN: Now the NDP, I'm sure — Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — will attack this and call it corporate welfare.

MR. LAUK: That's the same speech I gave.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm not reading your old speeches, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: It sounds like it.

MR. STRONGMAN: Inexpensive land for new industries, lower taxes for new industries, financial assistance for new industries — they call it corporate welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't we all?

MR. STRONGMAN: I call it corporate assistance, but it means jobs in this province. And that's the one thing that both sides of the House want. We must sell British Columbia to investors to overcome the barriers that I outlined earlier, barriers like mountain ranges, isolation from major markets.

I hope the minister will be presenting programmes that will be attractive and competitive with other jurisdictions, programmes that will be competitive and entice industry into this province.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

One of the things that boardrooms in other areas recognize is that they have to have a return on investment. A man in a boardroom in New York City isn't going to say: "I would like to go to British Columbia. It's a beautiful place. It's going to cost me a lot of money. I'd like to go there. I will." He'll say: "I'll go where the best deal is that's available." We have to make sure, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — that we do present the very best programmes and the very best deal possible. If we do so I'm sure that we will attract industry. We'll get away from this dependence on three major resource industries, so that we can broaden our base, have much more economic stability, and in so doing, have a much better life and more jobs for people in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That member should be a minister of the Crown.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sure if he were he'd do a lot better job than you did when you were Minister of Economic Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: He couldn't be worse than you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Member. I appreciate a breath of fresh air in this chamber to hear some constructive suggestions. However, I want to hasten to add, Mr. Chairman, that it's no surprise that it has to come from a Social Credit member, because the members opposite were void of ideas when they were government and they're as void of ideas now as they were then.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It took them three years to ruin the economy of this province, and now they're trying to drive it farther into the ground by the actions they've had in this debate recently.

MR. LAUK: Now there's a constructive speech. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to Port Hardy, the member for the north end of the island asked about Port Hardy. I'd just like to say that the Development Corporation is working closely with the mayor and the chamber. The town must provide the Development Corporation with their plan for road service, and utilities, and they are waiting on that now. As of last week, the town officials were entirely in agreement with the programme, and if you'd been a good MLA you'd have known that. Dependent on the speed at which the town moves, the Development Corporation hopes to provide Port Hardy with a subdivision plan for approval this summer, and everybody is collectively working with a sawmill operator who wants 10 acres, providing he can arrange for timber supply in the town. I hope that looks after your query in that regard.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about job training. I'd just like to inform that member that the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Economic Development are working together on plans for training of people in this province and for turning out people educated to take their place in society, but not for training people in our high schools at public expense to go out and see if society is working or not.

MR. NICOLSON: Glad to see the minister is in a vocative mood. The minister has, I think, had some successes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. NICOLSON: I believe that he might not have mentioned Atco Homes in Penticton — isn't there Atco there? That's right? I see that government has

[ Page 854 ]

decided to allow the building of 14-foot-wide mobile homes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Against the recommendations of his staff.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if he had discussions with Atco Homes and if he heard any submissions from them as to the desirability of building 14-foot-wide mobile homes prior to the change being made by the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). I'd like to know if he had conversations with them either in his office or in their office prior to that time. I see he's getting a bit of coaching from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I'd like to know just what efforts he's made.

I'd also like him to answer the question that I asked yesterday, and that is: is there a conflict-of-interest committee on the B.C. Railway board of directors? Or a sub-committee? Or an ethics committee? This is the practice with good professional boards, Mr. Chairman. So I'd like the minister to answer whether such a committee is established on B.C. Railway. If it isn't, I think that the members of this House have a right to know one way or the other. If there isn't, I would suggest very strongly that it be a policy that all Crown corporations, particularly Crown corporations of which that minister is a member, should have an ethics committee and a conflict-of-interest committee.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell us about the Casa Loma scandal!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if he's had time to read either the article in the Vancouver Sun or the article in the Province in which Mr. Bannerman and Radio NW gave an unreserved apology and $1,000 each in an out-of-court settlement to four principals of Dunhill Development. Has he had time to read that and has he had time to consider the intemperate remarks that he made at that time when, in the words of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), he was singing his duet with the hotliners from CKNW under the shower of legislative immunity in this House?

Those are a few questions that I would like to address to the minister. He's had some time to consider that, and I think that he now has an opportunity to show a sense of maturity and to act, perhaps, in accordance with what is expected of a person who carries the title "the honourable." He does have the opportunity to do the honourable thing.

So, Mr. Chairman, that's what I would like this minister to give us this evening. I think he has an opportunity to do that. He's certainly had ample opportunity to consider the newspaper reports of the out-of-court settlement.

MR. BARRETT: A gracious apology will be most welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr Chairman, the member asked about Atco Industries and the movement of 14-ft.-wide trailers. That member should know that there was a report — I believe it was while he was Minister of Housing — namely, the Audain commission on mobile-home living, but he would probably have forgotten that. It recommended the movement of 14-ft.-wide trailers, and he should remember that.

Now it's interesting that he brought up Atco Industries because Atco bought land in Penticton in 1971. They were going to put a plant in there. You know, Mr. Chairman, they talked about what we're doing to create jobs. We had to wait until the Social Credit government was back in British Columbia again before that plant went ahead, and don't let them forget it! That's creating jobs.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister on what basis and on what understanding Atco came into Penticton. Was it before the information or before the order-in-council that they made the decision? Did the minister give his assurance to Atco that legislation or that an order-in-council would be brought in by another minister in order to legalize 14-ft.-wide mobile homes? Did he give this information to other mobile-home industries or did he give it selectively to some and not to others.

Mr. Chairman, this is again an example of a minister who doesn't seem to realize what confidentiality means. This minister, who is a living sieve of information, gave information to Atco and to some selected friends that legislative changes through order-in-council were going to be brought in about 14-ft.-wide trailers so that they were making jigs....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's give an attentive ear to the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you. I think I can be heard, Mr. Chairman.

That minister was going around giving assurances to the point where they were actually tooling up for the changes...

MR. BARRETT: Weeks ahead of time.

[ Page 855 ]

MR. NICOLSON: ...weeks and weeks and months ahead of time, Mr. Chairman. Now I ask if that is the way in which a minister should conduct himself. That he should be giving such information, should be giving advantage to some people in the industry, giving favour to some but not to all....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to get up in this House and admit that it was he who gave that assurance, and it was on that basis that Atco Industries was building months before the legislative change was brought in by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis).

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, that member, as usual, is all wet. He's continuing the sort of charges that they've tried to make. I can understand, because they don't like somebody who is doing something for the province. He's trying to make out.... There were no assurances given to anybody. Atco manufactures 14-foot trailers in Calgary. There are no assurances given to anybody and I'll tell you there were no decisions made until the decision was made in cabinet. But that's typical of that member. When he was Minister of Housing there were no houses built in the province. People were running around looking for houses....

MR. BARRETT: Apologize!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: From 1972 to 1975 the price of housing in British Columbia quadrupled. It went up 300 per cent. Just now, under the great policies of this government, they are finally getting affordable housing in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's filibustering his own estimates.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh! There's the chicken farmer from Nanaimo piping up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. If orderly business is to proceed in this House, may I suggest that we have only one member speaking at a time. I've been observing that at moments we have had at least 20 members speaking at once. The standing orders clearly prescribe that one member shall speak at a time and he shall stand in his place and be recognized. Shall vote 79 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Absolutely not. We want an apology.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to apologize for people down in Halifax?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to make a speech?

MR. BARRETT: Just waiting for a reply.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, just a repetition of a question that, unfortunately, the minister did not answer.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: But the minister said he was not responsible.

MR. BARRETT: He can't help himself.

MR. SKELLY: We're aware of that. But he said he was not responsible for the Kitimat pipeline. Now I can understand that the cabinet wouldn't assign him any responsibility for that, but they did. He's a member of the energy committee of cabinet. In fact, I called the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications office one time and he refused to release that information. He said you can only get that through the Premier's office. I called the Premier's office and they listed off the members of that committee for me. But that member is a member of the energy committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peat moss!

MR. SKELLY: I hesitate to name names or the Premier might call an investigation into his own office.

But the minister says he's not responsible for a project that, if approved, will bring into this province a half a billion dollars in material and labour. Is that an economic development impact or isn't it? Half a billion dollars in material and labour for that pipeline.

MR. BARRETT: He's the only kamikaze pilot on that side.

MR. SKELLY: It'll create, on a temporary basis, jobs for 2,000 to 3,000 people most of whom will come to this province from outside of British Columbia. The minister seems to favour the importation of jobs from places like Alberta, and possibly Alaska in this case. It'll only create 150 permanent jobs according to the sponsors of the pipeline project, and most of those will probably come from outside the province, as well. And the minister says that despite these economic impacts she has no responsibility for the Kitimat pipeline, and

[ Page 856 ]

despite the fact that he's on the energy committee of cabinet. Yet there's a tremendous potential for environmental destruction.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni canvassed this subject matter just a little earlier and the Minister of Economic Development suggested to him that he'd better ask the minister responsible for energy. Consequently, I think that it's a waste of time of the House for the member to continue to insist on asking the same questions that rightfully belong under another minister. I wish you'd stop the member from being repetitious and from asking questions that are under the jurisdiction of another minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the member for Alberni that we suggested earlier on in the debate that perhaps some of this material might better be covered under the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. This material has been well canvassed and I would suggest that we now discuss the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Economic Development.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you for those instructions, Mr. Chairman. I am covering it from a different aspect, however.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who didn't want me to finish the question, who wants to suppress the information about the Kitimat pipeline, who doesn't want anyone to know what position the government is adopting on the Kitimat pipeline proposal....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SKELLY: When we asked the Minister of Energy in question period, he refused to answer. He refused to say one way or the other. We don't expect any more from him in his estimates than we get from him in question period. He refused to answer. I'm talking now about the economic impacts, Mr. Chairman, of this pipeline — not the environmental impacts but the economic impacts as they're traded off against the environmental impacts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, member, and I suggest that you discuss this under the Minister of Energy rather than Economic Development.

MR. SKELLY: And he will say it's the responsibility of the Minister of Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We cannot anticipate tonight what might happen in a future debate. Therefore I suggest that you now move to other material.

MR. SKELLY: I'm dealing with the economic impacts of that pipeline, Mr. Chairman, and the jobs that will be created in this province as the result of oil spills which will be caused by the increase in tanker traffic to the port of Kitimat. Again, port facilities, economic development. The minister talked about shipments offshore, exports and imports of manufactured items from this province. That's this minister's responsibility.

The increased shipping traffic into the port of Kitimat: it's been estimated by the United States government — not by our government, which is not competent, apparently, to deal with environmental matters — that if American tankers are used to bring oil into Kitimat if the pipeline is created, there will be a spill every four years with a disastrous environmental impact on the north coast.

But 40 per cent of the ships that will be coming into Kitimat will not be American tankers, and as a result the incidence of oil spills is estimated to be greater than one every four years. That's based on a U.S. Coast Guard study of the potential hazards of the Kitimat oil port. One spill every four years. There's almost no data available on the environmental impacts of either the Kitimat pipeline or the Kitimat oil port.

I'd like to read some of the information that was tabled by Kitimat Pipeline Ltd. — a company that wishes to do business in this province, to bring jobs to this province, to spend half a billion dollars in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you again to please restrict your material to the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Economic Development.

MR. SKELLY: That economic development is the administrative responsibility of this minister, even though he would like to deny it.

But those impact reports are inadequate, even by the statements made by the people who did the reports themselves. I'd like to just make a few quotes from those reports, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SKELLY: On the terrestrial impact statement which was done by Envirocon....

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. There's only one way the Chair can determine

[ Page 857 ]

whether or not the material being covered is relevant, and that is if the Chair can hear the material being covered. I will now ask all members to please desist from interruptions unless they stand in their place and are recognized. This instruction goes to all members, whether they be ministers of this House or ordinary members of this House. I ask now for order, please.

The member for Alberni has the floor, as soon as I am seated, and I would ask that he restrain himself from covering any material that is not strictly related to the administrative responsibilities of this minister. I believe that the Chair has a responsibility to keep this House at least to relevance, and I will attempt to do so with your help.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. WALLACE: That's the best speech we've had all evening. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact that the minister denies that he has any administrative responsibility for the pipeline, as I said, it is something that will bring half a billion dollars of investment into the province. If the minister is not responsible for investment in the province or jobs in the province, then who is?

I was speaking of the environmental impacts, the terrestrial impacts and the studies that were done in advance of this project being proposed. Even the people who have done the studies themselves suggest that the studies are inadequate, imperfect and incomplete. I'd like to quote from the Envirocon study on terrestrial impacts.

"The term 'impact' carries the connotation of precise, quantitative description of the effects of an action on the resource. This report is in an early-stage investigation of the resource components and does not justify the term 'impact."'

On the marine impact study, Mr. Chairman, which took 43 days to complete....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I will ask you for the final time to restrict your material to those issues which are related to the administrative responsibility of this minister. I might caution you that it could be construed that any subject at all could have some impact on the economy of this province, including the length of this debate. (Laughter.) Therefore I suggest that your remarks now be curtailed to the administrative responsibility of this minister. Unless the member is willing to do so, we will have to recognize another member.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this is related to the administrative responsibility of the minister, but it appears that the hour is late and you're getting a little cantankerous, so I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member will withdraw that remark.

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw that remark — not the motion, just the remark.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 29

Mr. Barrett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: I want to ask the House Leader if he will now accept an adjournment.

Interjections.

MR. KING: All right. Well, I'd like to ask the hon. Minister of Economic Development if he can explain to me why, in his estimates, a reduction in the salary of the deputy minister has been effected. I presume that the $1,080 cut that I have observed in the estimates for the deputy of that department is either a matter of restraint by the government or, indeed, a sanction levelled against the deputy minister for some misdemeanour that the minister has perceived on the service of his deputy. I think it is a rather serious matter....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, this matter should be discussed under the appropriate vote.

[ Page 858 ]

MR. BARRETT: That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It sure is.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it is covered in the minister's office — the total vote — and I think the minister could well answer it here. However, if he prefers not to, that is in line with the general posture that he has been taking with respect to all of the questions put to him thus far. The opposition is very patient, Mr. Chairman. If the minister does not wish to answer questions, the opposition is patient enough to stay here until his attitude changes, be that next week, next month, or next year, because we think that minister has a lot to answer for, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just remind the member we are on vote 79.

MR. KING: Yes, by all means, we are. Mr. Chairman, I think I would draw your attention to the clock at this time.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted for a division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman's attention having been drawn to the clock, I leave the chair to return tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 11:06 p.m.