[ Page 887 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Tabling reports

Housing Corporation of British Columbia annual report. Hon. Mr. Curtis — 887

Oral questions

Royal commission on BCR operations. Mr. Lauk — 887

Handicapped Persons' Allowance. Mr. Wallace — 888

Food production costs. Mr. Gibson — 889

Federal subsidies to ferries. Mr. Lockstead — 889

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 79.

Mr. Lauk — 890

On the amendment to vote 79.

Ms. Brown — 891

Mr. Cocke — 892

Mr. Gibson — 893

Mr. Lauk — 897

Mr. Stupich — 901

Mr. D'Arcy — 905

Mr. Wallace — 909

Ms. Sanford — 912

Mr. Levi — 915

Mr. Barber — 917

Mr. Cocke — 920

Mr. Lauk — 920

Division on the amendment — 921

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are a group of 20 Victoria citizens from the James Bay New Horizons centre. I would ask the members to bid them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): In the gallery today is a group of students from the Campbell River Senior Secondary School. They are accompanied by their teachers: Dianne Kindrick; Chris Round; and Doug Fieldhouse. I wish the members of the House would make them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are three young gentlemen from my constituency. You might remember that while they were shopping at a local grocery store last week, the place was robbed. While two young companions sped to the RCMP, one young 16-year-old gentleman stayed and held the robber until the police could arrive. I would like the House to make welcome Jim Stratford, Kevin Gilbertson and Gyula Kiss this afternoon.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, roses are red, violets are blue, today is Doug Strongitharm's birthday, happy birthday to you! (Laughter.)

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Today there are several members from my riding of Cariboo in the gallery; first of all, Mr. and Mrs. Don Baxter from Anahim Lake — Mr. Baxter is the chairman of School District 27 (Cariboo-Chilcotin) which is headquartered at Williams Lake; as well as that, from Anahim and Nimpo Lake, Mr. Dave Hall; from Quesnel, Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Watt and Mr. Jess Ketchum; and last, but not least, my wife and daughter. I would like you to welcome them all.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to ask everyone here to be my valentine.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Maxine Caldwell and her daughter Elizabeth. I would like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia for the year ending October 31, 1976.

Oral questions.

ROYAL COMMISSION
ON BCR OPERATIONS

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Premier, who on Monday last announced royal commission and left, like Sir Richard McBride, to Ottawa to do us proud. In view of the fact that the chairman of the commission has said it is unlikely the MEL Paving scandal will be dealt with, and a commissioner, David Chapman, has said he doubts whether witnesses involved in the MEL case will be called, will the government now amend the specific terms of reference to include the MEL case and the calling of witnesses involved?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before I request a reply to the question I would like to refer all of the hon. members to the fourth edition of Beauchesne, respecting the asking of questions on the floor of the House: "It is irregular and improper to multiply with slight variation a similar question on the same point or to repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused."

I would suggest to the hon. members that this particular question has been canvassed on the floor of this House for a number of days with other members of the cabinet and it would now be improper to ask the same question again this day.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, because the member seems to have some difficulty in understanding, I'll say what I said when the royal commission was named: the terms of reference are very broad and give them every opportunity, which I expect them to take, to look into all aspects of the B.C. Railway, as to its history, its present and the future. I'm sure that the commissioners — in fact I expect the commissioners — will take full opportunity to look into any controversies surrounding the past, through all administrations, through all presidents, all directors, and to deal with management. And those who expect excitement of a political nature from the commission may be satisfied. For those who are concerned with the railway in the present day, I hope that they will have their opportunity to...

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Still no answer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

[ Page 888 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I see nothing's improved while I've been away, Mr. Speaker.

... have their concerns identified. For the government and the large majority of the citizens, I certainly expect our concerns about the future use of the railway and how it can help make this province grow, to be satisfied by that commission.

Any concerns about any of the negotiations and contracts by the boards of directors — both the new independent board and the preceding board, and any other boards — will be fully looked at, I hope, by the commissioners. I am not giving them any additional instruction other than the terms of reference and the request that was made to them when this royal commission was set up. The opportunity — in fact the obligation — is there for the commissioners to look into all aspects of the railway; and I expect them to carry out that obligation, as does this government, this House and the people of B.C. That obligation rests upon them, and they make take, and should take, as much time as it takes to resolve the very, very important question surrounding the British Columbia Railway.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no. Smokescreen!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: To the Premier.... By the way, thank you for that very lengthy and explicit reply.

The February 2 issue of The Vancouver Sun quotes the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has been making the front pages these days, as saying the royal commission will investigate the railway boxcar plant, Railwest. As this is not a specific in the terms of reference of the order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, why is it not possible for the government to give such a categorical promise on MEL?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was so explicit is because of the difficulty of that member and his leader in understanding the answers and the terms of reference for the royal commission. I have no intention of reading it out again.

The rail plant, as part of the railway, will automatically be available for the commissioners to investigate as part of the terms of reference. Those terms of reference give them every opportunity to investigate all aspects of that railway. I am hopeful that those who have a lot to say while they're in this House and outside will make themselves available to that commission.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that those who have been most vocal won't hide behind this House but will go out and make their statements in public.

MR BARRETT: Whitewash.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS' ALLOWANCE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources, or his acting deputy. Don't all rush at once. Could I be informed who is acting on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We'll take it as notice.

MR. WALLACE: Well, perhaps I could ask the Premier. He's a very attentive member of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no.

MR. WALLACE: On second thought, the Premier has been out of the province for a few days, so let's try the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): None of them know anything about it.

MR. WALLACE: I shouldn't be joking in this way, Mr. Speaker. It should really perhaps be the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) .

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Maybe we'll all stand up. Everybody can answer your questions.

MR. WALLACE: Now you're all in suspense. With regard to the case of Mr. Bob Newman in Vancouver who was assaulted while living on $265 per month handicapped allowance and who subsequently received $300 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, can the minister tell the House whether that $300, awarded under legislation which has nothing to do with social assistance legislation and nothing to do with the minister's responsibilities, will be taken from Mr. Newman's subsequent handicapped allowance payments?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice on behalf of the minister.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could I just comment on this matter of asking supplementary questions when an hon. minister has taken a question as notice? Unless it's very pertinent to the question that was originally asked, it should be held up until the reply comes back to the House.

MR. LAUK: Well, I just wondered where the minister was. Is he meeting with the marketing boards this morning? (Laughter.)

[ Page 889 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

FOOD PRODUCTION COSTS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. After the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's) comment on his portfolio in headlines this morning, I'm tempted to ask the minister what he thinks of the welfare programme, but I'll refrain from that. I'll ask him if, in view of the latest heat-up in the war between the marketing boards and the food distributors and the concern with which all consumers are following this, he is now finally prepared to commission a royal commission into the cost of food and the whole production situation in British Columbia.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and myself are dealing with that matter and we'll be coming up with a proposal as to what the best approach is. We'll not only be looking at what the effect is on the consumer of this province and what marketing boards are doing but also what the effect is on the producer of this province, which is the farmer.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary on the same subject, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General: in view of the Attorney-General's well-known views on marketing boards, I would ask if he would be intervening in this court case on the side of the boards or on the side of Super-Valu.

MR. WALLACE: On the side of the angels.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'd like to give an expanded answer on that question, Mr. Member, but today I'll take it as notice.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): A further supplementary to the minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. I would ask whether or not he agrees with the statements made by the Minister of Human Resources as reported this morning in the press.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what the context of the Minister of Human Resources' comments was. I know it's in the paper but I don't think you can recognize that maybe they were taken out of context. I haven't had the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Human Resources and I will be doing that when he arrives.

MRS. WALLACE: I would ask the minister if he has read the report in the press and whether he agrees with the content of that report.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, you must realize that that would be an improper question to ask. It would have to be rephrased on a positive basis rather than in reference to a newspaper.

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of Agriculture: does he agree with the reported statement made by the Minister of Human Resources that the marketing boards encourage poor growers to be subsidized by the taxpayers' money? Does he agree with that statement?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister of Human Resources and it is a comment that has been made in the paper.

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO FERRIES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, if you or the government obtained any federal commitments for subsidies to improve ferry and/or transportation services to the mid- and north-coast areas of this province.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this important matter was discussed on three separate occasions with the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, with half-a-dozen federal ministers and with most of the Members of Parliament for British Columbia. They know our position now. They know our requirements and I expect that this matter will be dealt with in Ottawa in the next two week.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A very short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister obtain any federal commitments regarding subsidies for routes 1 and 2 for B.C. Ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this was the subject matter referred to in my earlier remarks and a decision along that line, we expect, will be taken in the next two weeks by the federal cabinet.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Minister, perhaps you could tell this House when you're going to take steps to restore the previous levels of ferry and transportation services to all parts of this coastal area. We've been waiting two weeks for an answer now. By the time we get around to implementing this service, the summer will be gone.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we expect to improve on the services that the federal government has been providing for many years.

[ Page 890 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a supplementary to the minister, would the minister tell us whether or not the Premier has been somewhat of a hindrance in this matter in that in his suggestion...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, "Order"?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I've got the floor, friend. I wonder if the minister realizes the Premier has been somewhat of a detriment in the negotiation in that he's calling at the same time for a regional area in the Atlantic which would thereby, using the present terms of reference, obviate the possibility of the Atlantic provinces receiving $100 million for their interprovincial ferry service at the present time. There seems to be a dichotomy growing over there. I'd like to hear what the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications has to say about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, on your question, the first part of it is certainly argumentative, and is therefore out of order. If the minister wishes to reply on another basis he can.

MR. COCKE: It's a straightforward question, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in my recollection, no Premier of a province has made as much impact on the federal cabinet ministers in Ottawa as the present one.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, perhaps I could take this opportunity to give the ruling that was alluded to just at the hour of dismissal on Friday.

On Friday last an amendment was offered to the vote then before the House, namely vote 79. However, the amendment offered was not in the form of an amendment but as a separate and independent motion, without referring or in attaching itself in any way to the motion sought to be amended. This appeared to the Chair to be irregular.

The difficulty with the proposed amendment becomes readily seen when it is remembered that each vote in Committee of Supply is a separate and distinct motion. Bourinot, fourth edition, page 425, expresses it this way: "Each vote or resolution is necessarily a question in itself, to be proposed, amended and put as any motion or bill in the House."

It may be urged that as there is only one vote presently under discussion and, further, that since the hon. Minister of Economic Development is mentioned, then by some necessary implication the motion offered can only refer to the vote under discussion. In the opinion of the Chair, any such necessary implication cannot rectify the deficiency, any more than a motion in the House seeking to amend a motion without referring to or attaching itself to the motion could be so regularized by some implication.

The Journals of the House confirm the view of the Chair in that they show — in 1973 at page 203, in 1974 at page 62, in 1975 at page 117, and in 1976 at page 155 — the vote sought to be amended has been specifically stated in the proposed amendment.

In the absence of any other guidance provided by earlier ruling of the Chair, it is my opinion, for the reasons stated, that the proposed amendment in its present form is not in order.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking the time to deliberate over that proposed amendment. 1, myself, spent tireless hours on the weekend and came to a similar conclusion. (Laughter.)

1 therefore, Mr. Chairman, move that the salary of the hon. Minister of Economic Development as provided for in vote 79....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. member, so that this motion could be in order, perhaps we should call the vote first and then the hon. member would be recognized to make the motion.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, last day I was being rushed. I was trying to get through all of the questions that the minister hadn't answered all last week. There were 36 of them that I had recorded. My colleagues inform me that there are even more questions that have not been answered at all by the hon. minister. Therefore I move that the salary of the hon. Minister of Economic Development, as provided for in vote 79, be reduced by $23,999 to the sum of $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion seems to be in order. The debate now moves to this motion and, by the rules of our House, the scope of debate is narrowed considerably and must be strictly in keeping with the motion itself.

[ Page 891 ]

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to support this amendment because I'm a compassionate person. I really would have liked to see the minister allowed to live on $160 a month, which is what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is asking 20,000 people in this province to live on. He has assured us that that is a livable sum and I think that this would have given the Minister of Economic Development an opportunity to see what people are being forced to live on in this province as a result of some of his economic policies. However, it was brought to my attention that to ask the Minister of Economic Development to live on $160 a month would have been ruled out of order, although it would have been certainly much more compassionate than asking him to live on $1 a year.

I am particularly interested in talking about the unemployment situation as a result of this minister's actions. Now we were told recently that there are 112,000 people in this province out of work. I think that maybe we should break that down into some statistics. I want to talk specifically about the women involved in these 112,000 people who are presently out of work. Of the 112,000, Mr. Chairman, 47 per cent, or 53,000, of that number are women. There were 53,000 women in January of this year registered with Canada Manpower as looking for employment. This sum should be compared with the 43,000 women who in January, 1976, were registered as looking for work.

If my arithmetic serves me right, that is an increase of over 10,000 women in this province looking for work in the one year that that Minister of Economic Development has been responsible for the economic growth of this province. This would seem to indicate that he is a failure, that contrary to there being growth, the opposite has been taking place as a result of his policies, coupled with the result of the policies of his colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and others. There are more people looking for work, and certainly many more women looking for work, in this province than there were a year ago. In my own riding of Vancouver, the average percentage of the work force now looking for work is 9.2 per cent. Of that number 33.3 per cent of these are women. If you couple this with the fact that the average income of the working woman is going down rather than up, Mr. Chairman, then you can understand why it is that I have to support the amendment put forward by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

This Minister of Economic Development is a financial burden on the women of this province. He's a disaster for everybody in this province who is looking for work, and at the same time, he is reporting in his very glossy annual report that he has a women's economic rights branch which is helping women in this province to find work. It's really difficult to reconcile the pretty pictures in his annual report, the nice words and the nice statements, with the facts, because we are told that the terms of reference of his women's economic rights branch are to develop employment or to create and foster economic development in all of British Columbia in terms of meeting the needs of all of the people.

Of course, when he was reporting on his department he gave to the women's economic rights department two sentences. He just said that it will continue to be a part of the ministry, and that they are now involved in doing some manpower studies in terms of the development in the north, none of which, Mr. Chairman, bears out the statistics which we have before us at this time.

The Minister of Economic Development has not created any employment. The Minister of Economic Development has not done anything about the increase in bankruptcies among the small-business population in the city of Vancouver and in the province at large. The Minister of Economic Development has not done anything about the fact that, as a result of his government's policies, so many areas that used to be able to employ people now find themselves unable to do so.

Most of the women in this province work in service industries. They are concentrated in the service areas such as the retail business, the restaurant business and the tourist industry. As you know, and as we will find out in more detail when we come to examine the estimates of the minister responsible for tourism in this province, it was an extremely disastrous year as a result of the fiscal policies to do with the 100 per cent increase in the ferry rates, the increase in the sales tax and other increases which this Minister of Economic Development condoned and voted in support of when they were introduced by his government.

For these reasons, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I find that I have to support the amendment of the first member for Vancouver Centre. If we continue to have the hon. member for South Peace River as the Minister of Economic Development, the economic status in this province is going to go from worse to worse to worse.

Another phenomenon is happening, Mr. Chairman — one which I would like to share with you and with the minister responsible for economic development. The unemployment situation is so acute that we are finding that men are now moving into the areas of employment that were traditionally reserved for women. This is increasing the number of women who are finding themselves unemployed and unable to work at a time, I should remind you, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is cutting back on subsidies to day care

[ Page 892 ]

and trying to save $30 million for his department by cutting out services to people in general.

Traditional areas, Mr. Chairman, such as the restaurant business, waitresses, retail, homemaker services and clerical work are now being invaded by men. I'm not saying that this should not be, because I believe in affirmative action and I believe that all people should be able to work wherever they want to, but what I'm saying to you is that this is affirmative action as a result of negative policies and not affirmative action as a result of positive policies. In fact, we are finding that as a result of the really negative effects of that minister's policies on the economy of this province, as a result of the negative effects resulting in the increase in bankruptcies, in the increase in small businesses going under, in the increase in the number of people looking for work, affirmative action of a very negative sort is taking place in this province.

Again, I want to restate my figures, Mr. Chairman. In January, 1975, there were 37,000 women unemployed in this province. In January, 1976, that number went up to 43,000 women. In January, 1977, Mr. Chairman, despite the existence of the Minister of Economic Development's women's economic rights branch, which is supposed to create employment for women in this province, that number was again increased to 53,000 women unemployed in this province and looking for work, and there's a difference between being unemployed and not looking for work and being unemployed and looking for work. The figure that I am using, Mr. Chairman, is only that of the women who are looking for work — 53,000 in the province as a whole, 9 per cent of the work force in the Vancouver area — and of the 9 per cent in the work force in the Vancouver area, 33.3 per cent of those are women.

Because of this minister's policies, and because of the really destructive impact it's having on the work force in general and, in particular, on the female work force, which is trying to carry its burden in terms of developing some kind of economic independence, I find that I am forced to support the amendment introduced by the first member for Vancouver Centre in saying that this minister's salary should be reduced to $1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm almost reluctant to support the amendment. I'm not quite sure it's far reaching enough. The member for Vancouver Centre is suggesting we reduce the minister's salary to $1. When you wonder about the dollar you wonder whether or not the minister really warrants the $1 either.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Economic Development — a minister in a very sensitive portfolio and the Premier indicated to this House that they were reluctant to do anything about his tenure in office when we were asking some time ago about that very tenure. The reason we were asking about it was because of the fact that we said there were business failures beyond belief in the province. I know I've spent the weekend discussing the question with business people and they're sorely afraid.

Mr. Chairman, while I discussed this matter with the business community and others, and discussed the question of unemployment, I ran into a very interesting phenomenon in this respect. I have a little carton here before me. I can best express the government's policy as shown by their actions. Mr. Chairman, we have an admitted number of unemployed in this province of 112,000. Now we know it's considerably more. As the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said, that's just those who are on the list, those who are registered unemployed. We know that the list is much larger than that if we were to go out and find those people who are not even registered any longer.

Mr. Chairman, in the face of this, the government, in its own policy, is creating even further havoc in our economy by buying from Alberta the very forms that they use in the Department of Labour in this province. I'm told that there are thousands and thousands of forms that Lawson Business Forms (Alberta) Ltd. print for the Department of Labour. This particular form was — I believe it's apprentice — "CEs tentative technical training assignment, part 6."

MR. LAUK: Where was it printed?

MR. COCKE: In Edmonton, Alberta, by Lawson Business Forms (Alberta) Ltd.

MR. LAUK: Is that where the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) buys his suits?

MR. COCKE: That's the same general area where the Minister of Mines buys his suits.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: I don't know whether or not they're saving the sales tax, but I do know this, Mr. Chairman: that Minister of Economic Development hasn't even got enough muscle in his government to reduce unemployment in this province by at least seeing to it that that government buys their business forms from a B.C. printing firm. Mr. Chairman, how does it work?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, there sits the half-boiled egg, the Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, it's interesting. You know, we're going to have to have a

[ Page 893 ]

new slogan in this province: "Inquiries, B.C.'s No. 1 industry."

Anyway, back to the Minister of Economic Development. Why can't he do something about a situation where we are sending away work from our province, sending work to Lawson Business Forms, Alberta? For a while they were shipping through almost a storefront subsidiary on Kingsway. But now, Mr. Chairman, in place of that, they are sending the forms from Lawson's in Alberta to Thunderbird Press in British Columbia, and from Thunderbird Press they go to the Department of Labour. Thousands and thousands and thousands of forms, Mr. Chairman, are printed away from B.C.

The minister, whom we are being asked by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) to pay $1, hasn't even had enough concern over this problem to look up. He is still writing letters to his constituents begging them to support him in the next election. Mr. Chairman, it's not good enough.

The Minister of Mines is back; we can tell by the way the House has rather lowered its level just slightly.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Garbage," he says.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment because of the fact that the minister has seen fit not only not to answer questions but not to give any kind of direction for his department over the next number of months. He has said to us in effect: "I'm really not interested in what the opposition thinks. I'm really not interested in the fact that there are a great number of unemployed in the province. I'm really not interested in the fact that businesses are going bankrupt at a rate that has been almost unknown in this province." He's not interested to the extent that he could have even looked up when a person was drawing to his attention that one of his colleagues — and probably a number of his colleagues; this is the only one who has been brought to my attention so far — is ordering forms from outside our province.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that minister should hang his head in shame when he gets up to endeavour to justify why we should even in fact pay him $1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have given a lot of thought to this amendment because, among other things, I know this is a hard-working minister. But you have to consider value for your dollar too. Just based on the single question of the information that the people of British Columbia have been able to get on northeast coal, which is the most important question for this province in this year, well, I say that I have to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a "trust us" government. They're not giving us any information; they just want us to trust them. You know what the Premier said?

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you spell that? T-R-U-S-S?

MR. GIBSON: "Truss us." Yes — "truss us up." You know what the Premier said when he came back? He was talking about a superport at Prince Rupert. The people of Prince Rupert might have some interest in that, but he said he wouldn't suggest a cost estimate because — and here is his word — it might "frighten" people. How much money is going to be spent in northern British Columbia by one or more levels of government is going to frighten people — so we don't have a right to that information.

Now the minister we are looking at has been following the same tack with respect to northeast coal. I studied very carefully in Hansard what he had to say on Friday.

You listen to this, Mr. Premier. You need some of this information. We need some of the information you have that you brought back from Ottawa. The Premier didn't make a statement today, Mr. Chairman. Did you notice that? I don't know if that's good news or if that's bad news. Maybe the good news is that he didn't make a statement. But I am going to ask you some questions right now, Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

What has this minister said about northeast coal? When are we going to get the information? I am quoting a little bit from Friday. It says we are going to get it "when we finish our negotiations with Ottawa." How does he know that we in this House support the kind of deal he is trying to make with Ottawa? Maybe we do; maybe we don't. Until we know the details we can't pronounce on that.

And he said: "Some hard decisions are shortly going to be made." Hard decisions obviously made, Mr. Chairman, without the benefit of the advice or the knowledge of the members of this assembly. After all, it's only public money that the minister is pledging in his deals one way or another.

"Trust us." Economically? No, Mr. Chairman, I don't trust them economically. What did "trust us" give us? It gave us the Dease Lake monster, on which the minister still hasn't been able to give us a revenue projection. There should be that kind of revenue projection before one more penny is spent on that line. If that's the way the minister runs economics in this province, then what's going to happen on this northeast coal? "Trust us" on December 11, 1975, is what has since given us the ICBC increases, the sales tax increases and the body blow to tourism through B.C. Ferries. That's what "trust us" has given; that's what the economic management of this province by that minister and by that government has given us.

Mr. Chairman, I don't trust that minister on northeast coal; I don't trust any government unless I have the facts. Those kinds of businessmen are quite

[ Page 894 ]

capable of producing a ton of coal for a cost of $65, selling it out of this province at a cost of $55, bragging about it after they cover up the shipping costs, and then doing it 10 million times and saying that's good for the province of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Shame!

MR. GIBSON: Talk about being bottom-line men! They've shown themselves to be something else than that over the years, if that's supposed to be financial wisdom. The bottom line of the B.C. Railway books is out every year, as the Social Credit administration has had the figures written in invisible red ink. That's the kind of bottom line they are. Their bottom line is votes, whether it makes sense or not.

Mr. Chairman, by the minister's own admission on Friday, $3 million worth of studies has been completed on northeast coal in this province. How many dollars' worth of studies have we had? That's $1 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia, and we haven't had two bits worth of information out of that minister on this particular topic. Mr. Chairman, to me that is an offence against the democratic process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: You say the people aren't worthy enough to have the information. That's an offence against this Legislature, which is supposed to vote the money for this department. I think it's a pretty despicable management of the news and information in this province on, I say again, the most important economic question that will come before us this year.

I'll tell you something, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to make a flat statement, and I challenge that minister to stand up and deny it — or the Premier, for that matter. Northeast coal is not economic at the present price of $55 — period. The minister is not reacting to that one at all, because he knows that what I have just said is correct.

MR. LAUK: Or he doesn't know at all, which is worse.

MR. GIBSON: He may not know at all, Mr. Member, but I suspect he does know because out of those $3 million worth of studies, I think he's read the summaries of one or two of them. He's getting pretty gravely concerned now.

Let me give you a few figures, Mr. Chairman, about northeast coal: the operating cost is going to be at least $14 a ton — Kaiser's operating cost now is $12, so you're not going to do it cheaper than $14 up in the northeastern section of British Columbia; the rail charges are going to be at least $18; the port charges are going to be at least $1.50 a ton; we know what the royalty is — $1.50 a ton; the depreciation per ton is going to be at least $10, and that is depreciating over 15 years a $150 per annual ton investment; the interest is going to be $15, and that's taking an interest cost of 10 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, all of these are today's forecasts. Remember, Kaiser almost doubled its cost from $90 million to $170 million during the course of completion. So these costs can escalate pretty seriously. But I'm telling you that these are reasonable forecasts right today. When you add all of that up, it comes to $60. What can you sell it for? You can sell it for $55, and there's no profit there; there's no taxes there.

You need $70 coal for a decent return on equity, and that's 70 current dollars — I'm not talking about inflated dollars — out of that part of the province. Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the average mine properties up there: the Quintette; the Saxon; most of the Sukunka. There may be one or two easily mined seams that can lower those figures if you get enough volume. Unless the minister chooses to get up and contradict those figures, which I have got by the best guesstimates available to me — and I would much rather have the benefit of the $3 million worth of studies the minister has — then we've got to have the answers to a lot of questions in this chamber.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, all of these figures assume a 10 million ton steady-state situation. They don't say anything about the buildup period when you're building up one million tons, two million tons, and so on, but your basic roadbed and rolling stock and most of your infrastructure is already in place.

So what are the facts, Mr. Chairman? We deserve to know them. You can make anything go with unlimited taxpayers' money. I hope this one will go. I desperately hope that northeast coal will go for British Columbia. But will you give us the facts so that somehow we can know that all your talk means something and is not just a cruel joke on the people of this province?

You know, we can't afford uneconomic development. We've got enough difficulties in this province without putting our limited resources into uneconomic development. There are some other things that we should be building — as Mr. Chips will agree — such as pulp mills in this province, that we know will provide the jobs. Yet we have the minister, quoted here in The Vancouver Sun of October 27, 1976, and I'm quoting him here. First of all, the paragraph before that said:

"Over the last year, the government has insisted any provincial money put into the northwest" — they mean the northeast, I think — "would have to be paid back by the mining companies in the form of rail rates and service charges. But Phillips indicated this position is changing. 'We don't know if coal can pay its

[ Page 895 ]

way, and if it can't, government might have to put in some of the infrastructure. Mind you, I'd like to see coal pay its way, but what industry can do that in Canada now?'"

Mr. Chairman, what kind of Minister of Economic Development is that who's saying: "What industry in Canada can pay its way now?" That minister had better realize that most of our industries can pay their way, pay taxes, pay for the social programmes we have in this country and pay decent wages to the employees, who in turn pay taxes again and pay for more of those social programmes. If they can't pay their way, and if the minister really believes that all the industries of Canada can't pay their way so he's going to subsidize another one, then he has a curious picture of the British Columbia economy. That will bring us to the same results in the end as the group that he criticizes so much that held the previous government.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Do you want to build a pulp mill?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would love to see the government take some leadership in getting a pulp mill going in this province. You know that we've got the workers and we've got the chips that are rotting in place and in three or four years, I think we're going to have the markets. I think there's a good chance of it, if you do it on the Quebec model. But, again, let's do some studies and find out about it. You see, this is basically what bothers me about the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Chairman — the fact that those studies are there and they haven't been given to us. At the same time — and we'll get to his estimates later — I'd ask the Minister of Forests to do a study on a new pulp mill in this province.

So, Mr. Chairman what's happening on this northeast picture? & companies are flocking around. They've got the government's message — Peace at any price. Peace development at any price. Peace coal development at any price. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to suggest to you the minister has nothing else in his economic development bag for this province. Well, if that's what it is, we'd better know. British Petroleum sure has the message, you know? They just put $30 million into Sukunka. And some of the companies in the southeast, I think, are getting the message too. Here's a little clipping, January 15, 1977, which suggests that Rio Algom is starting to .cool it out a little bit in southeastern British Columbia, because they see that northeast is the anointed area. So I see they've brought in a second.... I'll just quote the article here: "The second and most recent proposal is for a smaller project, producing only 1.5 million tons of coal annually." The first project, Mr. Chairman, was supposed to be 3 million tons. Maybe now it's not going to go ahead at all — who knows? — because of what the minister is doing up in the northeast. So I want to know whether he's sacrificing one region for another.

Mr. Chairman, we want development in British Columbia and I would be so happy to see that northeast coal developed. We want our share of the federal lolly in this province and I want to see us get it, but we have only so much money. We do not have money to spend on white elephants like the university hospital monument to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . We do not have money to spend on unproven things like the other $ 100 million that has to be put into the Dease Lake extensions — until we have the revenue studies to show it's worthwhile, and I want to know if we have the money for coal. Here are the questions I want answered, about market projections, supply areas and costs, financing and feasibility and ownership, infrastructure and manpower. I want them all added up to show there's an economic benefit.

We have got a little bit of basic data. We have the document dated February, 1976: "Coal in British Columbia: — A Technical Appraisal." This was part one of a two-part document, Mr. Chairman. It is stripped of much of its sensitive material, which was put in Part 2 and never made public. The figures are at least 18 months old, but at least it's a start. The government has later figures but we can't get them. But it gives us a bit of information.

First of all, let's talk about markets — volume, competition and price. In terms of volume, the Japan forecast is critical and they only forecast around 3 per cent growth a year, and that is probably not unreasonable. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the 1976 shipments to Japan dropped and the market softened considerably. So things at the moment are going in the wrong direction there. The European forecast growth seems to me a little high — 6.5 per cent. It shows us supplying eight million tons by 1995. The Canadian projection at about 4.5 per cent seems about reasonable. But out of all this mixed world picture, Mr. Chairman, the projected British Columbia growth is supposed to be 8.5 per cent. I want to know if the minister has commissioned a recent market study. I'd like to have the details of it. Who's doing it?

Then we get into the question of competition. Listen to page 89 of that Coal Task Force report. It mentions some of the potential suppliers. It doesn't have these potential suppliers stealing any of our market, but I'm telling you they might. Listen to this:

"China has immense resources of coal but has not participated to any extent in international trading to date. It has been assumed that China will not undertake a major

[ Page 896 ]

role in international coking-coal trade during the projection period."

That is, up to 1995.

Mr. Chairman, who can predict the activities of that sleeping economic giant, China, and what she might do for foreign exchange before 1995? My God, that's a pretty sanguine projection that, with those immense resources of coal, they won't be trying to cut into the Japanese market. They're going to need hard currency to trade with Japan — that's obvious.

Look at this — I'm quoting again:

"The Soviet Union will supply quantities of coal to Japan in the early 1980s from Siberia but is not expected to become a major international trader in the market areas considered to 1995."

Again, a very questionable assumption. The Soviet Union at the moment is the largest producer of coal in the world, of course, and to suggest that she's not likely to become an international factor by 1995 worries me a little bit.

And then, finally, you have the fact that, in terms of competition geographically, Australian coal can undercut us any day in the week when it gets into a real cost war; and let's keep that in the back of our minds.

Then let's go on to the technological competition. There are direct reduction mills planned in many of the smaller countries for steel that may have the result of shrinking the Japanese exports of steel, and therefore our coke market. As you know, Mr. Chairman, it take about 0.7 tons of coke per ton of steel.

We have no reason to believe that the U.S. and the European Economic Community will continue to expand their purchases of Japanese steel at the present rate, and yet that's an assumption in the forecast.

We know for certain that what's called the briquetting technique, whereby thermal coal is mixed with metallurgical coal — thermal coal being much, much cheaper and less revenue to British Columbia — can change the coking process in a way that will reduce our metallurgical coal exports. We can see, not just on the horizon but in actual use in some places, what's called the formed coking process, which doesn't use metallurgical coal at all. It starts out with thermal coal and upgrades it and uses it for coking purposes; so that is another technological threat to us.

As to price, Mr. Chairman, the market is very sensitive to any kind of oversupply, and commodities historically have moved down as well as up. Then what for British Columbia?

So with all of these uncertainties, I say to the minister: what market studies has he done? Will he not produce them? To not do so is irresponsible.

Now I want to talk a little bit about supply areas and the costs of those areas. There's a couple of planned expansions in southeastern British Columbia that the minister well knows of: a two-million-ton increment at Kaiser Resources; 1.5-million-ton increment at Elk River — total 3.5 million tons. There's only so much Japanese market expansion.

I want to ask the minister: if he goes ahead with his northeast plans, is he going to cancel the southeast plans for another decade? That's what it'll amount to. Or if the southeast goes ahead, what's going to happen to the northeast? Those 3.5 million tons that come on stream in the southeast are going to again use up the market for a few years. The minister knows the comparison. The infrastructure in the southeast is largely in; the transportation network is largely in. There are enormous expenditures required in both those areas in the northeast. So is he going to write off this southeast potential in order that he can go ahead with his northeast project? I want to know the answer to that.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Why don't you stay in the House once in a while? Then you'd hear the answers.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, Mr. Minister, you've never given the answer to that one.

Now what about financing? How much are we asking the federal government for? And who gets it — the B.C. government or the companies? What kind of deal is being suggested? How do we know, Mr. Chairman, that that minister, or the Premier, when they go down to Ottawa to talk about coal, are asking for enough — or asking for it in the right way? We just don't have the information. How do we know if we can support that minister without the information?

Look at the financing of the railway. It's going to cost something like $300 million to $500 million for a 10-million-ton development, if we can go on the cost escalations that happen in these things.

I want to ask the minister a very simple question as a director of the railway, let alone northeast coal: do you guarantee that a compensatory rate will be charged on the movement of that coal? Because if it's not, Mr. Chairman, it's a subsidy by the people of British Columbia to the outfits that are going in there. It's one way in which they can sell that coal that costs $65 a ton for $55 a ton and still pretend that it's making a bit of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

MR. GIBSON: I'm getting to that, Mr. Member. How many jobs? Indeed, that's a good question.

On the ownership, I want to know what the minister's thoughts are on the Canadian ownership of these new mines, if they're to be opened. I want to

[ Page 897 ]

know another principle: if the government of British Columbia is taking any risk in these immense projects, are we also going to be in a position — in an equity sense — to reap some of the proceeds?

I want to know something about the infrastructure. There are estimates of around $350 million for the infrastructure, in terms of townslite, roads and power. Does the government of British Columbia pay or do the companies pay? He suggested on Friday that perhaps the municipalities might pay, which is clearly insane.

MR. WALLACE: What are they going to use for money?

MR. GIBSON: I suggest there's going to have to be some kind of a mixture. There's going to have to be an allocation of these charges, depending on whether the facility — whatever it is — is put in place exclusively for that particular industry or whether it's something that would have to be done anyway. People who live in British Columbia have to have houses and sewers and so on, no matter where they live. But on the other hand, if these towns are going to be bunkhouse towns and not the principal residence for many of the people who live there, then you've got an incremental cost. That's the allocation procedure that he has to go through with respect to every one of those infrastructure costs. I want to know what that allocation is and what the people of this province are going to be called upon to bear in terms of extraordinary infrastructure costs.

I want to know if any special tax deal is proposed for the companies going in there. I think that this House has the right to have that kind of information and have it debated in the public forum before we go ahead.

I want to know what kind of studies have been done in terms of manpower training, because to the extent that jobs are created by these new developments, I'm concerned that they might be filled almost entirely from people outside of British Columbia, unless we get our training programmes geared up in advance. If we're trying to solve unemployment problems in British Columbia by this kind of development then we'd better make sure that our people have a fair shot at these jobs. I know the minister has these forecast — for $3 million he must have it! How many of these projected jobs are going to be filled (a) from B.C. (b) from the rest of Canada (c) from immigration from other parts of the world? What kind of manpower turnover do they expect in these studies? Are they expecting another Alcan-smelter-at-Kitimat kind of turnover with its enormous rates?

I want to know what all these various studies say about alternate use of coal: synthetic natural gas as a use of coal; the petro-chemical developments that can be built on top of that; the opportunities for in situ generation of synthetic natural gas by subterranean burning of coal fields. What kind of research has been done on that? I know there's some research being done in Alberta, Mr. Chairman, that B.C. Hydro, contributes to to a certain extent. But what are we doing here in British Columbia? It's not a tiny question. There are billions upon billions of tons of coal in this province that are locked underground, uneconomic for mining by any kind of conventional means, and yet which might well be approached by the in situ method of reclamation. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, when you consider the loss of what you necessarily have to leave in the general pattern of underground mines, the efficiency of the in situ generation — that can run up to 60 or 70 per cent, at least in above-ground test models — is not bad. As a matter of fact, in some cases it's better than what you'd get with underground mining.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are a bunch of simple questions. They don't seem too much to ask for a Legislature, on behalf of a group of taxpayers, !hat, as every week goes by, is becoming more and more committed to a certain pattern of economic development for this province — committed in negotiations with the federal government, with the Japanese and other customers around the world, and with the coal companies. All of these commitments, as I say, Mr. Chairman, unknown to this Legislature.

I very much hope that the northeast coal development will prove to be economic and that it can go ahead. I want to do everything that I can to encourage it. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that something of that magnitude to the province deserves the light of day. The people of this province must have the facts in what — and I say it again — is the most important economic decision facing this province this year. Mr. Chairman, I say to you, it is absolutely scandalous if that minister continues to withhold from this House that $3 million worth of studies, the results of the negotiations he has and all of the information which he has at his fingertips. It's too important. Without that information, Mr. Chairman, I certainly cannot support the salary vote for this minister and I'll be supporting the attempt to reduce it.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the minister won't answer the hon. leader of the Liberal Party, I will.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: The minister stood up in this House last week and complained bitterly about opposition attacks being negative, lacking any constructive support for the attack, and he sits now, during an amendment on his salary vote, silent, as the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) delivered

[ Page 898 ]

just perhaps one of the best-researched speeches on the northeast coal development delivered from the opposition side of the House. I can remember delivering one slightly better when I was the Minister of Economic Development (laughter) — but only slightly.

MR. WALLACE: Your modesty shames me.

MR. BARRETT: You're too generous, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Too generous?

Mr. Chairman, the DREE studies were negotiated by me with the federal government with two basic ingredients that no longer exist.

MR. BARRETT: Common sense and talent.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) is not in his seat, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: It looks like the regular occupant to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: One essential ingredient to the development of northeast coal was an indigenous, domestic British Columbia steel mill. That's No. 1.

No. 2 was that the $3 million was to go to the study of the development — the cost-benefit ratio....

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

MR. LAUK: One of the problems with that minister is he doesn't take the critique of the opposition seriously...

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody does!

MR. LAUK: ...but I'll tell you who is, Mr. Chairman: the people of this province. This government is absolutely desperate to have an announcement in the northeast coal development, and my friend, the leader of the Liberal Party, catalogued chapter and verse why it's impossible and why the federal government thinks it's impossible. I'll tell you why I think, and I know, that the federal government thinks it's impossible. DREE has participated in those studies in the northeast coal development. DREE says that the parameters of the development of that coal have changed now that the British Columbia government has lost the contract with respect to the steel mill. Secondly, it does not become economically viable unless the buoyant and increased volume of metallurgical coal traffic was proved up.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before, both those factors are no longer there. It was pointless to proceed with the studies unless the steel mill proceeded. That would have taken up at least 50 per cent of the production of the Quintette and Sukunka coal supply in the long term. It was absolute madness to consider the development of the northeast coal project within the next 10 years without those two major factors. They asked me to make a constructive suggestion. Let me tell you something. When we took office, the Department of Trade and Industry was a zero — there was nobody there. There were two economists who had been there for 30 years, there were a couple of secretaries, and that was it. There was no Development Corporation, no programmes, nothing.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): When we took over there weren't any files!

MR. LAUK: This is the mentality of this government, Mr. Chairman. For 14 months they've been talking about files, but they haven't come up with one concrete suggestion to provide jobs for the people of British Columbia — not one. Now let me say this: in three and a half years the department was built up and the Development Corporation was established. We instituted the strongest trade mission programme anywhere in Canada. We instituted one of the most beneficial development corporations anywhere in Canada. It was designed to help the community businessman, not big business, as it now is designed. We contracted for a steel mill, we had a contract on the table for a copper smelter, and we were going to proceed with the northeast coal development. All of that has gone down the tube. We had a northwest rail agreement — gone down the tube. Every step of this disastrous government has been a direct and fatal blow to the economy of British Columbia.

This minister talks about long-range planning. That is a joke. That is a clownish statement. It is absolutely full-faced against the facts. The fact is they lost the steel mill. I fear that the copper smelter will not proceed. I should go up to Kamloops and check that out. At least the bulldozers were out before they took office. Maybe they couldn't destroy that one.

Everything this minister touches turns to failure — everything, Mr. Chairman. I have nothing against him personally. I just do not think that he is competent for his job and he should be removed from office or have the good grace to resign in the face of a

[ Page 899 ]

scandal-riddled portfolio and in the face of utter failure on each and every project that was designed by the progressive policies of the New Democratic Party.

We know the northeast coal development is uneconomic without domestic use in steel mills. It's absolute madness to go to Ottawa! Ottawa is telling the Premier "no," and the Premier won't stand up and say so. Oh, sure, they'll put out the $3 million and hold hands for federal political reasons. They'll do a little burnblebee dance with this Premier over here and this Minister of Economic Development, but it's not going to proceed. It's not going to proceed because there aren't businessmen over there to put it together. They don't know what they're doing.

DREE says it is too costly at this time. A consortium has to raise $200 million for every one million tons shipped every year. In other words, that's the production cost, the capital cost, to develop those supplies in the northeast. There has to be $200 million for every one million tons that they want to ship. That's $2 billion for the projected project in the northeast and an infrastructure cost to all levels of government of over $1 billion. Now you can't have that kind of an investment without the kind of economic situation that the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Gibson) said should exist. You just can't do it. It's stupid economics, but stupid economics have characterized and stalked this government for the past 14 months.

We had a project going. We were investigating the Hat Creek thermal plant. I want to say that I am speaking for myself and not for the entire party, when I say that Hat Creek thermal coal should proceed and the fly-ash from the Hat Creek thermal coal will produce alumina and an aluminum rolling-plant in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There's Mr. Chips laughing. He hasn't got a clue about what I am talking about.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You haven't got a clue about what I am talking about. Do the feasibility studies and the engineering studies to use that fly-ash for alumina...?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He says: "It's a pipe dream." They want constructive suggestions. I'm saying stop, for heaven's sake! Do nothing! Let the projects that the NDP put on the board proceed and you'll provide the jobs for the future population of the province of British Columbia. In their ignorance, Mr. Chairman, they are laughing and chuckling as we're all on a roller coaster to disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't be serious.

MR. LAUK: I'm perfectly serious. The northeast coal development cannot proceed without a steel mill to use the coal, without developing other alternative uses for metallurgical coal.

Also, the Hat Creek coal thermal project should proceed. We need the power. We can use the fly-ash for alumina, and we can establish an aluminum rolling-plant in the area. Let's start thinking in terms of adding value to our natural resources. Why do we have to have the blinkers on? You're all a bunch of nervous Nellies over there.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, those are the positive suggestions that I had to make. Do you see the reaction, Mr. Chairman, that I get from this government? They complained that the opposition is a wrecking crew, that we're always negative. In 14 months this government has been able to destroy the major projects planned by the NDP government. One, the northwest rail agreement, was destroyed on political whim and ego on the part of the Premier of this province. What he'll come up with will be something much less, I predict, than was already agreed to when he put it on the shelf.

They destroyed the steel mill. The steel mill is connected to the northeast coal development. This is the kind of insular, balkanized thinking we have in that government.

They raised the ferry rates without knowing the economic impact on Vancouver Island. They didn't even consider it. What kind of stupid economic policy is that?

They raised the ICBC rates and the sales taxes without knowing that it would take $700 million out of the retail sales markets of the province of British Columbia. What kind of stupid economic policies are those?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long enough to remind you that the present line of thought is taking you into the conduct of the government, whereas under this amendment — your own amendment, by the way — the scope of debate is limited to this minister's conduct. Not even whether or not he should or should not be in the cabinet should be discussed — only his official responsibilities. I know that you know this but I just wanted to remind you.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for directing my attention to the gravamen of this vote.

[ Page 900 ]

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to point out that what this government wants from the opposition is not positive suggestions. They destroyed enough of our positive suggestions already — this minister in particular. When he rose in his place the other day he didn't deliberately mislead the House, but he said that the land in Prince Rupert would cost $70,000 an acre to develop and that the current sales price would be $50,000 for the acreage.

My information is that there are 70 to 90 acres under development on the Heilbroner estate in Prince Rupert. They have already spent about $2.5 million to $2.7 million, and it is expected another $300,000 will be spent. You take your little average calculator, and that to me works out to $42,000 to $43,000 an acre. The minister said $70,000 an acre. What kind of nonsense is that? He stands up in his estimates and gives these kings of incorrect figures.

I spoke before, Mr. Chairman, about conflict of interest — one of the reasons that I have moved this motion of non-confidence in the Minister of Economic Development, and his refusal to answer questions in debate that ranged one entire week. There have been over 19 hours of debate on this one minister's estimates, and he hasn't answered any questions.

Well, let me quote to you from my book of selected unanswered questions of the minister. Why has the minister failed to table the results of studies into women's economic rights by the department? Why has the minister not announced the specific market commitments he claimed he obtained during his junket to Japan?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this list of questions...I think by the first two questions I recognize a list that is already in Hansard. Perhaps the minister could refer to the list rather than take the time of the committee.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. I'll refer to the list. The other questions I'll mention have not been mentioned.

Where will the $2 billion come from that I have just mentioned to start up the northeast coal project? He hasn't answered that question, Mr. Chairman.

Now that the Premier has returned from Ottawa.... I don't blame the Premier for not taking the minister to Ottawa with him. It seems he didn't get any results anyway, but taking the minister with him would have ensured that he wouldn't have got any results. The minister's whole conduct in office is so impaired that no one could take him seriously in Ottawa.

Has he had a chance to talk with the Premier? I understand the Premier had a press conference this morning, and he didn't stand up in the House today to make any announcement. Does the Minister ofEconomic Development know about any such agreements?

The list goes on. The minister has not outlined any specific emergency employment programmes for the 112,000 people unemployed, and it's growing every day. It must be much higher by now. How is he going to stop the exodus of companies from the province? There's another question the minister hasn't answered.

And here is a very serious question that the minister did not even mention at any time that he has been on his feet: is he satisfied that the British Columbia Development Corporation board or any of its officials did not deal in shares in Quasar, August or Cheyenne during the critical period of time between June of last year and the announcement in December? I wish the minister would come clean. Is he satisfied that no further officials of that Crown corporation are impugned by that activity?

Will the minister table a survey and summary of loans of business firms, at least until September 30, 1977?

I outlined to you conflict-of-interest situations involving Ragan Construction. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in a good talk here the other day, pointed out the very serious conflict-of-interest situation. We have had the conflict-of-interest situation involving his ministerial assistant, Mr. Weeks, and so on, indicating terrible judgment on the minister's part.

We have seen the conflict-of-interest situation about the land in Dawson Creek. It was authorized that the Development Corporation should buy this land at cost and sell it to Dawson Creek at cost at no benefit to the Development Corporation and fulfilling none of its goals, as stated in the legislation or in its criteria. Well, the city of Dawson Creek didn't take it up, but there was a conflict-of-interest situation there that the minister should have understood and realized. His political interference in decisions of the board with respect to loans is proven by the board's approval of the Aspen Lok-tite loan. The minister has not satisfactorily replied to those charges of political interference.

More recently today, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised, and I will put this in the form of a question to the minister: could he confirm the report that a member of his departmental staff, Mr. Norman Worsley, who is in charge of land acquisitions for the Department of Economic Development, was seconded to Finning Tractor in the province of British Columbia so that he could go up to Sparwood on behalf of Finning Tractor to obtain highway access agreements from the Department of Highways on behalf of Morris Young, the president of Finning Tractor and also a member of the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation? Can he confirm that Mr. Worsley, a civil servant, paid by the province

[ Page 901 ]

of British Columbia, was used by a private company by virtue of the fact that a member of the board of the BCDC was the president of that private company? The minister must answer that charge.

We have an ever-growing list of conflicts of interest involving this minister. Is it little wonder then that we raise this motion now, reducing his salary, a form of non-confidence? As I indicated on Friday and I say again today, Mr. Chairman, the opposition will immediately withdraw this motion if the minister resigns his portfolio and lets someone whose image and credibility is not impaired take this portfolio in hand. Will the minister answer those questions?

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, I was waiting. I thought the minister might at least want to comment on the member of his staff who was apparently paid for by the government but who was doing work for some private individual. I thought that at least would get some response from him. However, it would seem that he is not prepared at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I recall the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman), I think it was, last week complaining that there had been no constructive suggestions from the opposition side of the House. It's perhaps unfortunate, or fortunate, depending on the point of view, that that member did not have the advantage or the disadvantage of having sat in this House from the fall of 1972 until the summer of 1975. Certainly, during that period, the minister whose salary is now under review was very good at being negative. He spoke in opposition at every conceivable opportunity, and when it came to economic development, he was kept very busy in opposing annually and regularly economic proposals that were put before the House by the Minister of Economic Development in those three years. In every session, there were positive proposals for economic development put forth, and in every case that particular member, Mr. Chairman, spoke at great length — without making any sense — and voted against every positive proposal that was put forward by the NDP minister responsible for economic development.

It's quite a different situation that we're dealing with now, Mr. Chairman, and that's why this amendment has been moved. The present Minister of Economic Development, having held that post for some 14 months, has, by his own admission, nothing positive to propose. It was Friday of last week, I believe, when he almost pleaded With the House to give him some constructive proposals and reacted almost pathetically, Mr. Chairman, to the second member for Vancouver South, who did make a positive suggestion. The minister made a great show of marking that down. This was the first time that something positive had been proposed to him by anyone else and, apparently, the first time that he had ever had an opportunity of any kind to consider anything positive, because he had never been able to think of anything positive himself in his 14 months in that office.

A lot of things have gone wrong for that minister and for the province of British Columbia since that minister has been Minister of Economic Development. Right from the very beginning, things started going wrong. After all of the talk about what was happening to mining in the province under the NDP administration, it wasn't until the Social Credit coalition was re-elected that things really started falling apart. I think it was within six weeks of the election of that administration that Granduc Mines announced another substantial layoff. And it's still going on, Mr. Chairman. A report that I received just today from the Mining Association of- British Columbia reports another plant closed down, Noranda's Ocean Foundries plant in Surrey. Ocean Foundries ran into market problems in 1976, Mr. Chairman. Nothing at all to do with the election of the NDP government in 1972. One more instance where this minister has apparently failed completely to service economic development in the province.

Rising costs, combined with lower product prices, have, of course, closed some mining operations or forced reduced shifts on others. It goes on to talk about Canada's potential, and that is all that the minister had to offer when he was being called upon to respond to some of the remarks from the opposition side: "B.C. has a great potential. Trust us. Give us another year and maybe something will start breaking in our favour."

But in the meantime he, as Minister of Economic Development, apparently has nothing at all to propose in a positive sense and, of course, we can't criticize him because he's done nothing. There's nothing positive that we can criticize. We can only criticize him for his sins of omission and for the sins that he committed when he was acting as a member of the opposition.

Granduc's announced closure was just one thing that happened since that minister became Minister of Economic Development, about which he showed such lack of interest that he did nothing. I recall Hickman Tye closing down in this very city. It was a business that had been in operation for over 100 years, and I don't recall the Minister of Economic Development even saying a word about it, let alone doing anything about it.

About a week ago, he met with different people to talk about Oakland Industries, here in this same city of Victoria. He did report to us that he met with them briefly one morning. He did report to us another meeting going on that afternoon, and that he might have something to say the next day. He did report the next day that there were further meetings

[ Page 902 ]

going on and he was optimistic — or at least hopeful — that something might come out of it. But, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I was out, but I've heard nothing since. I'm waiting to hear from the minister what is happening on Oakland Industries. If he's going to be doing so little about something that's happening right now and that is so important in this city, while his estimates are under consideration, and doing so little when he's under pressure himself in the House and outside of the House, then, Mr. Chairman, we certainly have a very grave concern that when he is out from under the pressure of getting his salary through the House he will do absolutely nothing.

We'd like to have some assurances something is going on. What about meetings? Are any further meetings going on? Does he have anything else at all to tell us about the rest of the meetings that have been going on with respect to Oakland Industries? It's an old question, but it's supposed to be an ongoing thing and there should be something new to report by this time.

Very early in this debate on this particular vote, the minister spoke about a trip to Japan. He was very optimistic about the sale of agricultural products to Japan, but he gave no details. What agricultural products are to be sold? What is his optimism based on — some casual conversations he had with somebody in a restaurant in Japan? Does he have anything concrete to tell us, anything that will encourage people involved in the agricultural industry in the province of British Columbia that he really has some potential market there, that there have been some serious discussions with somebody in Japan who is interested in buying agricultural products from the province of British Columbia?

Let's have some details, Mr. Chairman. He certainly got them when he was on the opposition side of the House. He would put these questions to the minister of the day and he would get responses where responses were available. If there wasn't any information, he was told so. But now, Mr. Chairman, we're being told nothing. He just sits there and waits, hoping to wait us out. What about some details on that proposed sale of agricultural products to Japan?

What about the Prince Rupert pulp mill situation? What did the minister responsible for economic development do when those people were laid off in spite of the fact that they had assurances from several Social Credit spokesmen that this would never happen? Once it did happen, there was the scurrying around: "Button, button, who's got the button?" Who was it who said they never would be laid off? Everybody disclaimed the responsibility and said it was somebody else's problem, but in the end, Mr. Chairman, it came down to the Minister of Economic Development. We have one more closure, or partial closure, and the Minister of Economic Development apparently is not particularly interested, not concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I recall to you that when the NDP were in government, there were positive proposals coming forward regularly. This member opposed them regularly at great length without making any sense, but he has done nothing about those institutions and those proposals that were put into effect and that became very good proposals for the province of British Columbia, but that he felt could be so much better or without which the province would be better off. Yet the Minister of Economic Development has had little to say about any of these industries since.

What about BCPC, which by this date must have contributed between $350 million and $400 million to the people of British Columbia? The present Minister of Economic Development spoke at great length and very often against this proposal. He voted against it, but has said nothing about it since. Mr. Chairman, now that he is the minister responsible for economic development, is he satisfied with BCPC all of a sudden? Does he think it's a great thing now, or does he have some suggestions for changing it now so that it will better serve the interests of the people of British Columbia?

What about Canadian Cellulose, Mr. Chairman? I've already mentioned the layoff at Prince Rupert. You'll recall that when it became 79 per cent owned by the people of British Columbia, it was done to save jobs. The government of that day reacted positively to save jobs. I can't recall one instance where the present Minister of Economic Development has recommended anything to his government, or to the Legislature, or to the people of British Columbia, that would save one single job, let alone 1,000 jobs — not one proposal. He has been delinquent in his responsibility; he has abdicated his responsibility to the people of this province. Yet he sits there hoping that somehow his salary will be voted for or that this amendment will be turned down.

What about Canadian Cellulose? Is the minister satisfied with what's going on there? Does he have any changes in mind for improving that? Does he have any changes in mind that will increase the job opportunities in the northwest of the province? There certainly is a need for that kind of action. What is this minister thinking about? What is he doing about it? It was a very constructive, positive proposal put before the Legislature, and it was opposed violently by that member at great length and often. We've heard nothing, not a word, about it since.

Mr. Chairman, there's one in his own riding, and we've heard nothing about this either — South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. I understand.... I'm sorry, I don't understand in this case because I don't know, but I would like to know whether or not the minister or his department is represented on the board of directors for South Peace Dehy. I understand it is in

[ Page 903 ]

receivership. Quite apart from the fact that he is the MLA for that area, what involvement has he taken in the affairs of this company as Minister of Economic Development? Has he shown any interest in it?

It would seem that this is one year when that company could have been expected to do very well, a year when there were tremendous forage crop failures in Europe because of the kind of summer weather that they had in 1976 — the sort of winter weather that we're having right now, very dry. It would have seemed that it would have been an excellent opportunity for South Peace Dehy to have found new markets, to have sold all of its product. Yet in the last few months this was the time that it went into receivership. Now what is the story behind that? This House certainly heard a great deal about South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. I believe that member, as the MLA for that area.... I think that's the one constructive proposal he's supported, but nothing about it since.

Mr. Chairman, before I would vote for his salary, or before I decline from voting against an amendment to reduce his salary, I'd like to have a report from the minister as to just what happened with South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., which he was obligated, or somebody was obligated, to put into receivership. He didn't give it the kind of support it needed, apparently, to get it going.

I think this was a very worthwhile endeavour. Get a new industry established in an area that needed it; get forage crop growing in areas where previously they had been concentrating on grain too much to a great degree. We wanted to encourage them to move into forage, and the forage plant seemed to be a way of doing that. Let's have something from the minister to tell us just what went wrong with South Peace Dehy.

I'd like to ask him a lot of questions about Swan Valley, but he's said nothing about it and I'd prefer to wait. I'm not sure what kind of negotiations are going on. If he cares to talk about it publicly some time, Mr. Chairman, I'll be only too happy to respond. In the meantime, I'm quite prepared to wait until the government wants to make this a public discussion. I recognize that the Premier would also be prepared to get into that public discussion, and that's fine, Mr. Chairman. I'll be quite prepared to do that when the time comes. But in the meantime, if the minister has anything he can tell us about it, I'd like to hear it.

Mr. Chairman, what's happening with Ocean Falls? I hear some recognition from the back on Ocean Falls. Again, this was a move that the government of the day undertook to save employment, to save a town, to save social capital — there was a tremendous amount of money invested in that plant. That member opposes it. He violently, vigorously challenged contracts for selling the product, did everything he could to kill that organization in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the business world — of the whole world. Now, Mr. Chairman, we've heard nothing from him about Ocean Falls. Is he, as Minister of Economic Development, prepared to invest further in Ocean Falls, to grant further financing so that it can do the necessary expansion so that it will be more of a moneymaker than it has been in the most recent financial statement we've seen? What is he doing as the Minister of Economic Development? Is he going to bring in these kinds of recommendations? What is he doing, Mr. Chairman? Until we hear something positive from him, until he has some ideas, until he can answer some of the questions we're putting before him, how can we do otherwise than vote for this amendment?

The Squamish car plant: what are we hearing about that, Mr. Chairman? Here he has a responsibility not only as the Minister of Economic Development, but as a director of the railroad. There has been a lot of talk about the Squamish car plant and the opportunities that plant had for selling its products. I don't know what's happening there. I've heard nothing from this minister. I do have a newspaper story here. It's the Province, dated May 4, 1976, and of course it's quoting an inter-view with Lloyd Bingham, general manager of BCR's car-building subsidiary, Railwest Manufacturing Co., talking about the potential of that plant:

"One possibility is that a South American country may place an order for knocked-down parts for railway vehicles. Second, a sales opening may also develop in Mexico which, though largely self-sufficient in rolling stock, does need specialty cars from abroad. Third, at home Railwest is looking to build coal cars if any major mine to produce export fuel is opened on or near the BCR system."

Is Railwest doing anything about these coal cars? The minister is talking a lot about coal. What's going on? Railwest designers are looking at all-steel cars as opposed to aluminum alloy. What's happening there? I think, Mr. Chairman, there's one particularly interesting paragraph in this write-up talking about the productivity, and this minister, you'll recall, has spoken on several occasions about the relative lack of productivity of B.C. workers. This story reads as follows:

"During a selling trip abroad, Bingham toured one rolling-stock plant where the output rate per man was only one-third of the Squamish plant. 'When I told them what we were doing, they would not believe me.'"

It's a new plant, Mr. Chairman, well built, well conceived. It had opportunities, it would seem to me, to do something in the way of economic development for the province of British Columbia. But what's happened? Has this minister abandoned it? Is he just

[ Page 904 ]

going to let it sit there, let it exist? Is he going to close it down or is he going to expand it? Is he going to help it go aggressively after more markets that would contribute something to the economic development of the province of British Columbia? What is he going to do positively about anything?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

If I could just be negative for a moment — and we're getting these same stories I suppose, from all over the province, but certainly here's one paper that has not been noted for being particularly friendly to the MLA for Nanaimo — there are pictures of half a dozen stores on the main street of town that are closed. This is not dated 1973,1974 or 1975. This is dated January 20,1977, after this government had been in office for over 13 months. No, not a word from the Minister of Economic Development. Some of the stores closed down, others had moved, but the premises are empty. This kind of thing is going on all over the province — it's much worse in most other communities than it is in Nanaimo — but it's the first time that I can recall this kind of a story coming from the hub city, Nanaimo. Now that's going on all over the province and there's not one positive suggestion from the Minister of Economic Development. He was very good for three or so years at attacking everything positive proposed by the NDP, but apparently a complete failure at coming out with one single positive proposal on behalf of his own government.

I'd like to ask him about another one in my own riding. It was one that was announced, I think something like a year ago, by the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) that said the Duke Point project was ready to go ahead. I believe that was over a year ago. Mr. Chairman, I've heard nothing since, other than from local people anxious that it go ahead. It seems nothing is really happening. Now what is the minister doing about the Duke Point proposal — the back-up land at Harmac that was going to be used for industrial development? I would like to have some response from him on that particular question as well.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned several positive proposals, contrary to what was stated by the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman), that were being activated under the NDP government that have apparently been dropped since. As the first member for Vancouver Centre said, if this government under this Minister of Economic Development were simply to have carried on with the projects that were being actively pushed under the NDP administration, it would have kept him busy — because it's not too hard to keep him busy, Mr. Chairman — just working on the projects on which we were working. And he could have done much for the economic development of the province had he not been content to sit back in his chair and smile or, on occasion, to stand up and make a speech that had nothing at all to do with the question under consideration.

There has been mention of the steel mill. I had opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to visit the steel mill at Fukuyama where I met the manager of that plant and the man who said he would be the manager of one to be constructed in the province of British Columbia. No final decision had been made as to whether it would be done or where it would be done. But I notice in the minister's report, the Department of Economic Development — the one that was tabled in the House recently — on two pages there is mention of this steel plant. Under special projects division it speaks about phase two of the B.C.-NKK joint study. Under the provincial economist section of this report — "A member of the executive committee of the B.C.-NKK feasibility study...the committee co-ordinated the efforts of various departments," and so on. So obviously something was going on in this department on this steel mill.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to visit that mill. I met the man who was the general manager of it; I met the three managers. It was rather revealing to me that of the three there was one general manager who was in charge of the whole project; there was another whose total responsibility was protection of the environment. This is one of the top three men in that organization, an organization that produces eight million tons of steel a year. One of the top three men had as his complete and total and only responsibility the protection of the environment. They told me quite proudly of the fact that 96 per cent of the fresh water going through that mill was recycled — used over and over. They told me even more proudly that the mill currently under construction in Tokyo was going to be recycling 99 per cent of the water, and they said that's the kind of plant they were talking about for the province of British Columbia.

They showed me their housing projects and asked me whether or not this type of housing would be acceptable in the province of British Columbia for the workers that would be working in that steel mill. And from what I saw, Mr. Chairman, it was quite acceptable for the kind of plant, for the kind of situation it was, and would be acceptable in the province of British Columbia from what I saw — well built, well designed. The workers were very productive. There were the same kinds of signs up about accident-free days; they were very concerned about the protection and the comfort of the employees.

1 had an opportunity to ask him some questions. I asked: "Why do you want to come to the province of British Columbia? You have one steel mill here; you

[ Page 905 ]

have others in Japan; you're building a new one in Tokyo. Why come to British Columbia?" And I was told — he was speaking in Japanese and it came through an interpreter — that their first choice, if they were building another mill, would be in Japan because they have a large work force there, and the most important thing is labour. But they have to bring everything into Japan, and the possible sites for building future steel mills are limited in Japan. So they were looking to build one somewhere else in the world that would give them better opportunities to tap world markets for their product. "Our second choice," he said, "would be Brazil because that's where the iron ore is coming from. We can get the workers there; we could bring the coal there; the iron ore is there. That would be our second choice of a place to build. But we're coming to the last choice; we're coming to B.C. And we'll come to B.C. not because we want to go to B.C., but we recognize in the province of British Columbia we're dealing with a government" — and I'm going to do it in English just as it was told to me in English; I don't know what he said in Japanese — "that believes in the value-added factor."

He knew that the government in the province of British Columbia at that time was not anxious simply to sell its coal to get rid of it. It wanted to use its resources in the province of British Columbia to create job opportunities and economic opportunities in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, this minister apparently abandons all those plans, goes off to Japan and says: "We don't want you here. Please come in and take our coal. We'll build roads, we'll build railroads, we'll build ports; we'll do everything we can to make it possible for you to come in and take our coal. If you need any more money, let us know; we'll help you pay that too. No increase in royalty." Remember the increase in royalty that was proposed? That's not under this minister, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman.

They now are dealing with a government that apparently does not believe in economic opportunities in the province of British Columbia and apparently never heard of the value-added factor for our coal. When they think about coal development, all they can talk about is: how can we get rid of our coal? The Japanese knew that when we were in office they were dealing With a government that wanted to create job opportunities and economic opportunities in B.C.

Mr. Chairman, I suggested to him that it was possible the NDP might not always be the government in the province of British Columbia. Of course, that had to go through the interpreter as well. And he recognized that as well, but he said: "We're talking about today; we have to deal with the situation as it is today. If the situation changes tomorrow, then we'll deal with that situation."

Well, the situation did change. They now have a government that obviously doesn't believe in creating job and economic opportunities in B.C. and they are in a much better bargaining position because they know that to create any opportunities here, this government is anxious to get rid of the coal. They are in an extremely good bargaining position now — not so good before, but very good as long as this "say-nothing, do-nothing" minister sits in that chair over there and does nothing for the province of British Columbia.

What about the copper smelter? The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked that question, but got no response. The oil refinery? Absolutely no response from that minister.

Mr. Chairman, there were many positive proposals coming forward on a regular basis when the NDP was the government in this province. That member took it upon himself to lead the attack against every one of those positive proposals. He had done nothing at all about any of the positive things that were accomplished and rolling by the time he took office, and the ones that were still on the drawing boards, were still being planned, or were still being worked on, he has apparently abandoned completely. He has sat and fiddled while the economy of B.C. has gone downhill. He has done nothing constructive to maintain job opportunities or to build economic opportunities in the province.

Mr. Chairman, as a Minister of Economic Development for the province of British Columbia, he has been a complete failure. We can do little else than vote for this amendment to reduce his salary, unless the government were to take our advice to simply replace him and put someone in who is genuinely interested in building up the province of British Columbia. That is what we are here for, Mr. Chairman. That's why we are all here. We want to do something for B.C. And the best thing that can be done for B.C. right now, short of having an election and getting rid of all of them, is to get rid of that particular Minister of Economic Development and put someone in who truly is interested in economic development — not in Japan, not in the States, not in Europe or Brazil — but here in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, in all conscience, as members of the Legislature in the province of British Columbia, we have no choice but to vote for this amendment.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. My remarks are going to be pretty well confined to what is happening or not happening relative to this ministry in my own riding and, by association, in another part of the province that seems to be going through the same experience.

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Economic

[ Page 906 ]

Development produced a month or so ago two reports that had originally been commissioned by the former government back in 1973 and had been promised in three years. It took three and a half years to prepare these reports by the Interim Planning Agreement staff, more frequently known as IPA. These reports — one for the Kootenays and one called "The Central Report," which refers essentially to the central interior, the Cariboo-Prince George area — were billed as the general outline blueprint of options for these regions in terms of dealing with the federal agencies to get some assistance for British Columbia. This assistance had been lacking under the last two governments, considering what had been available to other regions of Canada. Even wealthy provinces such as Ontario had benefited substantially by DREE funds, by ARDA funds and by funds from other federal agencies who, for one reason or another, had not been putting money into British Columbia. The excuse that Ottawa always gave was: "Well, you're not playing the game by our rules. You're not applying in the right way." The idea of the IPA studies was that they would show a series of local options under which the province could go in support of local municipal councils and local industry, and tap into some of these federal funds for assistance, with community infrastructure rather than simply the handouts to industry that had characterized these kinds of programmes in the past — these deliberate boondoggles which I don't believe anyone on either side of the House supports. I have heard spokesmen for the government repeatedly say that they don't want to see handouts in industry, they don't want lame duck industries and those that can't stand up on their own feet.

So it was intended to go the other way, to try and attract senior government money into land development, into servicing land, industrial land, residential land, and sewage and water systems which, we all know, are fantastically expensive. These reports had not been out very long, Mr. Chairman, and the various major industries, and municipal councils and regional districts have only done a cursory investigation up to this point. But I've had conversations with many of these people and there is a sameness about the comments that they make. One of the things they say is: "Well, how much did it cost? We know we didn't have any input. There was no dialogue from us. What about all this factual misinformation in there, this poor editing?"

What about statements like a certain mine having a 10-year life expectancy, a 10-year ore supply, when the company tells me: "Hey, but it's only a year and a half that we have; we told him that, but they still put 10 years in there"?

What about the lack of input by interested environmental groups which may have some concern about whether or not there's a particular plant, or a particular mine, or a particular open-pit operation which may be proposed? They have a right to their day in court; they have a right to dialogue.

Many people in this province and elsewhere are constantly complaining that developments take place.... They are simply laid on them and there is no discussion ahead of time, no ability to make their position known because it's a fait accompli when it's finally delivered to them. To my knowledge nobody got together with consultants, which is an interesting thing, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the number of consulting reports which went into the central report, but in the Kootenay report there are no fewer than 12 consulting reports.

I would like the minister to tell us if he can hear me, sitting over there in the corner. I didn't mean to frighten you, Mr. Minister. I'm sure you are listening anyway.

Perhaps we could find out what these reports cost. There are 12 of them. In my experience, consulting reports can run anywhere from $ 50,000 to $100,000. I think we're looking at possibly $400,000 to $500,000 minimum shared equally by the federal and provincial taxpayers. What have we got for our money when the people at the local level who have to try and deal with these things are saying: "Gee, there's nothing positive in those reports, and nothing really very negative either. They are kind of nothing reports, gathering dust already. There are no enquiries from private sectors, and no business or industry interested in the reports." Mr. Chairman, these are the kinds of comments which have come to me from officials in both the private and the public sectors in these two regions, officials who have no reason to play politics with me, because in some cases, particularly with the central interior people, they had no idea who I even was. I got their phone numbers out of directory assistance, and simply called planning departments and public relations offices.

There are absolutely no positive things recommended for either region, except that there was a bit of disconcerting tendency on occasion to appear to play one community off against another, which I submit is a very bad thing for government to do, because government reports and statements in them have a way of coming back to haunt local officials and governments. Government reports, particularly reports of the Department of Economic Development still tend, even with this government in office, to have a little bit of prestige. They're prestigious. People consult them as apparently authoritative. If there is bad information contained in there, or if there are apparent inconsistencies and poor editing, this tends to reflect on that region and those communities for absolutely years to come.

One major criticism was that the reports were too general. There was nothing clear on what was meant on the options; indeed, the options weren't even

[ Page 907 ]

spelled out. There was no growth forecast for industry. That was rather interesting. We've heard the government say that there were great plans for things, but there was no growth forecast for industry until after 1980. As we all know, anything could happen after 1980. Most people are interested in what they're going to do next year, or maybe even next week. They're wondering whether they can support themselves or whether they can stay in business.

When we talk about lack of credibility I notice an item in the central report that said there was a possibility, of two thermal pulp mills in the Cariboo–Prince George area. In a call to the Forest Service, I was told that the Prince George forest district was already 97 per cent committed. Businessmen and chambers of commerce in that region are wondering where that kind of timber would come from.

Agriculture is virtually written off in both reports. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how the stockmen's associations in the Cariboo feel about that. Certainly, the dairymen in my riding were very disconcerted when they saw that. The people who were attempting to establish a poultry industry and an egg classification plant in the Kootenays weren't very happy to hear about that either. We find that existing agricultural developments are almost written off in a government report that's supposed to talk about the options for improvement and diversification.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has talked recently about great growth that she hopes to see in the tourist industry in British Columbia. Yet both reports give a static — tourist industry outlook for these two major interior regions.

However, one can say; "Oh, these are just reports, and, of course, the real world out there is where it's going on. We don't need to worry about what some bureaucrat or technocrat writes in a report." That may be true in some cases, Mr. Chairman, but we see conclusion after conclusion in these reports and absolutely no information or explanation as to how these conclusions were arrived at. So there's absolutely no way of refuting or tackling these things except to write off the whole report.

My other major complaint about these consulting reports is that they are suffering from what could best be described as a kind of benign secrecy. I don't have any knowledge of the government or the department denying anyone access to these reports. It's just that someone has to come 500 or 600 miles, if they're a municipal planner or an alderman or a mayor, and has to know that you would go to the fourth floor of the Toronto-Dominion Bank building on Douglas Street in Victoria. If you went there and met the right people and asked the right questions, I'm sure they would let you see all these piles and piles of consulting reports.

But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what possible value these things are to the people in the region if the interested private citizens and the interested public people have to make that tremendous amount of effort. It kind of reminds me of the very adequate B.C. Hydro power report done by the Shrum commission in 1972, which is still the major blueprint for power development in British Columbia. I think there was a public document available to everybody, except I think there were only six or seven copies printed. One had to be very lucky, indeed, to get a hold of one of those copies.

I'm asking the Minister, Mr. Chairman, not only about the cost of these reports but if the government intends to talk to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and RDIA. How much money do these departments have? Last year and the year before they didn't seem to have any money for British Columbia. I gather that their budgets have been cut or are going to be cut. As one senior civil servant commented to me: "When you talk to DREE, you realize after a few minutes that they're talking about everybody else's money. They're talking about CMHC money; they're talking about various federal funding schemes which have been in effect for a long time. They're not talking about any new money; they're just talking about moving around existing programmes that have been in effect for years and years."

I would like the minister to tell us — or perhaps the Premier could — in the discussions with the federal people, how much money there is available for British Columbia. Is there any available and how will it be spent, or will it be spent?

And I would also like to know if the local authorities will be consulted. I don't expect, nor does anybody reasonably think, that a provincial or federal government is going to take orders from the local level, because the ultimate responsibility lies with the provincial government. But I do not think — and I hope the government would agree — that there should be an ongoing dialogue not just with municipal and regional district offices, but with major industries and with interested private groups, such as I mentioned earlier — environment groups which have a public interest in this sort of thing and deserve to be heard by people who are making major economic decisions.

If there is going to be any of this federal-provincial cost-sharing, I don't want a series of useless boondoggles of the kinds of things we have seen in other parts of Canada under some of these programmes. Where there was no local input, the project benefited no one;it did not improve the quality of life in a local area; it did not lower land costs; it really did nothing that anybody really wanted because there had been no input, because different areas, different towns, different regions all have different needs.

In my area — and I know it's true in other parts of

[ Page 908 ]

the province as well — serviced land is a major item — serviced land for homes, serviced land for commercial developments and serviced land for industrial development.

What about bulk water systems, Mr. Minister? We see right here on the Saanich Peninsula a major water shortage developing. What about sewage systems? I see from the nine-month economic review — I'm glad to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in the House — that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is overspent already. I suspect it's largely due to overspending on sewage systems and water systems where the government is virtually locked in to paying 75 per cent of the capital cost over three mills. We're talking about municipal programmes which are financed over 20 years. These costs are not going to go down; they're going to go up each and every year.

I certainly think that the federal government should be matching the provincial funds not just on new projects, Mr. Chairman, but on all the existing ones. At present, as I said, there is a 75-25 split after three mills. I believe that the federal government should be coming in for 43 per cent on all these programmes. That would reduce the provincial commitment to 43 per cent and the local commitment to 14 per cent. This money is not only needed right now, it's needed for future programmes, and I think Ottawa should have been participating all along.

I gathered from his press report that when the Premier went to Ottawa, he was greeted very kindly and they were very nice to him, but they didn't give him anything; they just....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are discussing the salary, on a motion, of the Minister of Economic Development. We seem to be skipping around the various ministries. Would you kindly get back to the motion, please?

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about this minister's office and this minister's action, or inaction rather, with regard to dealing — because it's his responsibility — with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion and in dealing with RDIA and the IPA studies. I'm relating the need for that kind of involvement in that kind of funding assistance, which has not been forthcoming — nor has there been any indication it is forthcoming — to why it is so valuable to each and every community in this province.

I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that if you'll allow me — and I hope you won't think that I was skipping around — I would have thought that the minister would have been doing this kind of negotiating. Perhaps the Premier has decided to do it for him, whether that means the Premier doesn't have faith in him or whether he felt he was too busy here in Victoria. I would hope that the Premier, when he was in Ottawa, had time to take time out from his skating on the Rideau Canal to drop in and discuss some of these things with the federal people.

If the Liberal Party is looking for votes in British Columbia, I think one of the things they could do is cooperate with the provincial Ministry of Economic Development and the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in attempting to meet some kind of accommodation to fund infrastructure programmes. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the government across the way, and spokesmen on this side of the House as well, have constantly said over the last few years that we're not interested in handouts to industry and that we want to see the kind of cost sharing that goes into improving a community's infrastructure, improving its power supplies, improving its sewerage systems, improving its water systems and reducing the cost of land in British Columbia.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think that one of our economic problems in British Columbia is that serviced land is too expensive. There is a free market in serviced land, and there is very little of it. When you have a high demand and a low supply, you have very high costs for housing, very high costs for industry to locate, very high costs for commercial development; and that in turn leads to higher income expectations and all-round higher costs for prospective industry or industry which is here right now. Hence, it impairs its ability to compete on international markets. That's why it's so important that this minister get on with the job of getting some kind of financial assistance out of the federal government.

As I say, I propose that it be a matching amount for municipal infrastructure programmes which are already in effect in British Columbia. That would go to reducing land costs, reducing operating costs, reducing the taxation load at the local property level, which applies to industry, commercial and farmland as well as residential property, and thereby reducing, the costs of operation of industry in British Columbia and allowing them to put more capital into expansion, more money into seeking new markets, more money into providing more jobs which, in turn, would have a cumulative effect of reducing unemployment and increasing revenues to the government.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by noting once again that these reports.... Could the minister possibly enlighten us as to how much they did cost? They were jointly funded, I gather — 50 per cent federal and 50 per cent provincial. It is eminently clear at this point that this is money that has been very badly spent. But perhaps worse than the fact that the reports are really of no use — they don't tell anyone anything they didn't know already — has

[ Page 909 ]

been the time, Mr. Chairman, that has been spent while these communities and these regional districts and these industries waited, hoping to see some leadership from the government, to see some initiative and to see something which could be done which could be taken as a series of options and as a blueprint in dealing with the federal government.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: No, I'm talking about your government, Mr. Minister. I'm talking about your government. We don't want to see the kind of boondoggles.... I suppose if I mention the Fort Nelson water agreement, Mr. Chairman, we're going to hear that that was signed by the previous government. It's true that it was, in September, 1975, but it didn't get started until last year. I know something about the problems in that mainly because not only did your department not even consult with the local people, but you didn't consult with other departments. There were mistakes made on that project which if you had consulted with Municipal Affairs you could have avoided or if you had consulted with Water Resources you could have avoided.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you could have.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, they would have been but you didn't start that programme until January, February, March of last year — three or four months after you'd been in office. Even though the basic financial and business agreement was signed under the previous government, I wonder whether that agreement ever would have been signed, Mr. Chairman, by that minister had they been in office at the time the problem arose. However, the fact is that that kind of an infrastructure agreement should be applied equally in the Saanich Peninsula, to a bulk water system in the lower Columbia Valley, to all the major sewerage and water projects which are either underway or badly needed in British Columbia if we're ever going to get the cost of land and the cost of doing business in British Columbia down to a level that we can make ourselves competitive on international markets and continue to supply ourselves with business opportunities. As has been said before, and I reiterate, you have to have business opportunities, Mr. Minister, before you can have job opportunities, and you can't keep creaming the public in taxes without putting something in. And I believe now is the time that your department could be making some very positive steps in dealing with the federal government to provide all kinds of lower costs in British Columbia which would in turn lead to new jobs, new plants and even service employment opportunities.

MR. WALLACE: This secondary debate obviously calls for members of the opposition to document why this is a reasonable amendment. I would think that if for no other reason at all, it is a reasonable amendment on the basis that this government, and particularly this minister, made commitments to get the economy rolling.

The record shows that, in fact, instead of unemployment decreasing, it has either stayed the same in some areas of British Columbia or become considerably worse. I would have to say at the outset that if there is one single reason why this minister has not fulfilled the commitment he made in seeking election and subsequently in many speeches, it would have to be on the basis that our economy in British Columbia has shown little change. Some unemployment in some areas is worse, but generally speaking, the British Columbia economy is stagnant. I think that's the most charitable word I could use to describe our economic situation today, regardless of what party is in power. Some of the reasons it is stagnant are not entirely within the control of this government. So the responsible kind of criticism that I think we should be offering from this side of the House is to debate those areas that can fall within the initiative of this minister and this government, and to not waste the time of the House dealing with the considerable areas of economic difficulty that are external to the boundaries of British Columbia.

I'm interested that the Premier's back in.the House. I think that his attempts in Ottawa to establish the kind of links that simply have to exist in a confederated form of government are to be commended. What will come of these meetings that the Premier had in Ottawa we won't know for some time. But it certainly makes the most basic common sense that the Premier of this province should certainly make himself available in Ottawa, at formal federal-provincial conferences, or on the kind of foray that he conducted last week. He might even suffer the slings of outrageous fortune and finish up being branded a Liberal. But we all know, Mr. Chairman, how deceptive political labels are in our present political arena.

I'll return specifically to those areas where this minister could be doing something and has failed, which therefore justify this amendment. It's very disturbing to follow some of the minister's comments that he makes publicly, such as the one that appeared in his local newspaper in December, 1976, just two or three months ago, with a, large headline: "Economy on the Road to Recovery." That must be pretty difficult for residents of the north country to understand when they can't find work, to the degree that many of them simply have to leave and try and find another part of the province or another part of Canada where they can be self-reliant. Just as a matter of interest, Mr. Chairman, to document the

[ Page 910 ]

accusation I'm making, my office made some inquiries of two or three northern communities in relation to school enrolment. It's very interesting that in Prince Rupert, for example, the enrolment is down — figures for January, 1977 as compared to 1976 — by more than 215 pupils. In January, 1976, the total was approximately 4,500, and in January, 1977, it was approximately 4,300.

In the Terrace district — I know the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) would be interested in these figures — the figures show a drop of about 267 pupils entering school. In the Peace South figure, which I was able to find from the superintendent's office, there was a drop of 247 entries to the schools. Various individuals who gave us some of this information volunteered the comment that families were leaving their area because of unemployment. I'd just like to repeat a comment from the debate last week, since the Premier is back in the House, to the effect that fairly reliable statistics, based on the payment of family allowances, show very clearly that in 1975, for the first time, there was a net outflow of families from British Columbia to other provinces or to the United States. In 1976, that net outflow of families was recorded as being 641, which surely documents in a reasonably reliable way the fact that our economic picture in British Columbia is stagnant and that families find themselves compelled, at the very least, to move from the areas of high unemployment to the lower mainland — which really doesn't solve their problem usually — or, worse still, to leave British Columbia altogether. This is a bitter pill to swallow when we hear so frequently that British Columbia is richly endowed with natural resources, with great potential for development and is regarded in the Confederation context as being one of the three "have" provinces. This, I think, is another obvious fact of life which would suggest that the Minister of Economic Development is failing far short of the commitment either to attract industry to British Columbia or to expand the industry we have and, therefore, create more jobs.

It's also distressing that the minister is always talking about the future and it's usually the long-range future. Another headline from his local newspaper, when he was speaking to the North Central Municipal Association convention, was reported: "Phillips Promises Great Things for the North." It isn't really too much of a cliche to say that his efforts seem to reflect that cynicism which the public has about politicians that it's always promises, promises — there's always some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow next month or next year or sometime in the future. It's quite obvious from the unemployment statistics, the figures I've quoted of families leaving British Columbia, and the generally stagnant level of our economy, that this minister is doing very little at present, or in the near future, to provide the jobs that are so vital and so urgently needed.

If it were not so serious, Mr. Chairman, I would find it a little amusing just to record the comment that the minister made to the magazine B.C. Market News in December, 1976, when he was busy explaining the failure of his trip to Japan. As I mentioned at the outset, not only is there a lack of new jobs or improvement in our economy, but even some of those projects which appeared to be underway have fallen apart. Once again, the minister did not agree that the steel mill project was cancelled. He used the delightful phrase "temporarily suspended." In one paragraph, in trying to disguise the gravity of having the project cancelled, the minister said:

"I can say that provided British Columbia is able to sell its coal at world competitive prices, and provided that we can show by performance that we are a secure and stable source of supply, and provided that agreement can be reached with Ottawa on transportation and regional economic expansion matters, and provided that the current lag in the economic recovery process is overcome, then I am confident that British Columbia will expand its coal exports well beyond the present intended purchases of five million to the northeast and 2.5 million to the southeast."

This would have to rank as one of the most hedged-around statements that any minister could ever make, I would suggest, with these four large provisos upon which we then might be able to export coal in economic quantities to Japan. An abler mind than mine has already analysed the uncertainties of the coal project this afternoon, and while the minister and the Premier continue to give us the suggestion that assistance from Ottawa is just around the corner — and I would like to think that the development can go ahead on an economic basis — at the same time, this kind of statement by the minister himself on his return from Japan, hedging around his supposedly optimistic statement with all these provisos, really reveals that the minister himself is not at all confident that the development of the coal project will be economical. I would hope that it isn't just a question of the minister and the Premier fooling the people of British Columbia by dangling some kind of potential coal project as the solution to our economic and unemployment problems.

There has been very limited, if any, initiative shown by the minister to implement some of the commitments made at the last election to diversify the economy and make it less dependent on one or two fundamental industries, such as lumber and mining, which are presently having their troubles.

The minister has also shown a surprising lack of perception as to the responsibility of a minister

[ Page 911 ]

serving on the boards of Crown corporations. I have no need to take the time of the House to repeat the comments I made last week, save to make very clear the opinion I hold. This minister does not seem to either understand the responsibility he holds as a minister serving on Crown corporations. If he does understand, this makes some of his recent actions inexcusable, particularly in relation to the settlement of the Ragan Construction situation. In that regard, the minister shows poor judgment or poor understanding of his responsibilities. Again, there is no need to refer to the fact that we already have two official inquiries underway, one reflecting in particular on the minister's capacity to choose wisely in regard to his assistants and those holding office close to the minister.

One specific point that I would like to end on, Mr. Chairman, is on a more positive note, because I don't enjoy the least little bit this kind of debate where we spend our time documenting why the minister has failed in his responsibilities. It would be such an exciting kind of debate if we could be analysing those initiatives which he has taken to at least come up with some kind of positive conclusions that progress is being made in regard to stimulating the economy. Since we have been accused of being very negative, I'd like to put forward one particular proposal and hope that the minister will respond.

In my view, it would relate to the B.C. Development Corporation, the concept of which, I think, was sound. I gather that in the last year or two they've made some loans in the industrial sector that went sour. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the B.C. Development Corporation to show some of the ambition and enterprise upon which it was founded.

I'm delighted that the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has entered the House, because I wish to intertwine the discussion about travel and economic development. In the Friday edition of the Vancouver Province, I think, it was suggested that the B.C. Development Corporation come to the aid of the troubled ski-resort industry in British Columbia. I think this report, which appeared in the press but which has not been raised in this House as yet, raises certain questions, the basis on which the loans are to be made. I hope the Minister of Economic Development is listening.

If they should turn out badly, as some of the industrial loans have done, would this then lead to the B.C. Development Corporation being very, very reluctant to provide assistance in future years? What risk is there that political pressure would decide who gets the aid and on what terms? My proposal would be that there should be some more reliable ongoing programme which would stabilize these aspects of the tourist industry on a regular basis, rather than just being involved when a crisis or emergency arises.

We've all said many times in this House that the tourist industry is becoming an ever-larger vital factor in our total economy. It also happens to be labour-intensive at a time when unemployment is at least our No. 1 or No. 2 problem along with inflation. It can provide both permanent jobs and summer jobs for students. Since the tourist industry has previously received substantial amounts of public money for infrastructures such as roads and parks and recreational facilities, it would seem to me that there is an exciting potential to not only make the industry more healthy, but to flatten out the peaks and dips which are inevitably related to such matters as a very poor snow season, some strike in some other transportation industry — an air strike — or perhaps competitive situations south of the border such as the bicentennial.

I think that the Ministry of Economic Development, in conjunction with Travel Industry, should look at a proposal which I'd like to outline very quickly this afternoon. The tourist industry is looked upon by investors as being a high-risk industry. I understand there tend to be high interest rates and a fairly short term of repayment compared with more traditional lending. I wonder if the B.C. Development Corporation might not consider creating a tourist industry insurance and finance corporation. The insurance part would function very much like crop insurance whereby persons operating in the tourist industry would voluntarily, if they chose, have access to some kind of insurance that would provide help to them in the bad years, such as the bad year the ski resort industry is now suffering.

I want to make it plain that I'm suggesting that the government should only be involved to the extent of the initial injection of capital. The plan itself would be financially sound and self-sustaining without subsidy, other than the fact that if this were a soundly based programme of insurance, the government, through the B.C. Development Corporation, could be in a position at least to provide prime interest rates rather than have the tourist industry face some of the high interest rates which presently prevail. Of course the principle of a revolving capital fund would mean that operators could make payments in the good years and have some form of support available in bad years. I'm talking in very general terms but I think the principle has certainly been established in the agricultural industry by providing crop insurance. We've already said — and I think we're all agreed — that the tourist industry is now such a large part of our total economy that if some kind of crop insurance seems reasonable in the agricultural industry, should we not be looking seriously at some equally successful programme for the tourist industry?

Under the financial part of the corporation that I'm suggesting, the business would be operated

[ Page 912 ]

somewhat like a mortgage-guarantee scheme for first mortgage financing. Again, it would only be available to insured tourist-industry projects owned or operated by British Columbians. The guarantee would only be made available if the terms and rate of financing are competitive with other low-risk financing in the marketplace and, of course, if the project were viable on that basis. As a Conservative, I do want to emphasize very clearly that except for the initial injection of capital this would be self-financing and self-sustaining, without subsidy.

These enterprises should be able to obtain funding at prime interest rates — not subsidized interest rates — with the financing being spread over a longer period of time than appears to be the case under present conditions prevailing. For example, I understand that the Grouse Mountain project, which is having problems, has, I believe, a period of something in the order of five to six years of financing for repayment. It's very obvious that if in the very first year of the repayment there's no snow, the project founders right at the start. Something in the order of 300 employees, I understand, have been laid off in that particular project at that particular resort. I'm not picking that one for any particular reason except that the details have appeared in the press. The principle that I'm trying to suggest would seem to be very well exemplified by the situation at the Grouse Mountain resort.

It would seem also that an injection of initial capital by the B.C. Development Corporation, for example, would result in a very substantial spinoff in the form of associated jobs in a secondary way, let alone the essential advantage to the tourist industry itself. It seems to me that this is the kind of programme that the people in the industry have a right to expect from a free-enterprise government that professes to admire initiative, the taking of risk, the investment by small and not-so-small businessmen in projects where they have a sound economic basis to start with.

There's no question that this proposal for a tourist industry insurance and finance corporation could achieve some very admirable goals. It would first of all recognize beyond all doubt that the Minister of Economic Development and his department and the Ministry of Travel Industry do indeed not only recognize, but support the fact that tourism is now — as the minister mentioned I think today at the opening of the new headquarters — a billion-dollar industry in British Columbia. As such, we should do all we can to avoid dramatic peaks and valleys from year to year dependent on a variety of circumstances such as weather and other factors that neither this government nor any future government can control. In other words, I'm suggesting this project would go a long way to stabilize some of the uncertainties of the industry and some of the ups and downs of unemployment from summer to summer.

I noticed, for example, that at the meeting the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was at in Quebec City a week or two ago, it was pointed out that the bad summer of unemployment has resulted in a great increase in failure by students to pay off student loans. So providing this kind of assistance to the tourist industry.... It's only assistance. It isn't handouts, it's not subsidies, and it's not any kind of hidden payment. The plan I'm suggesting is self-sustaining and financially sound. I think it should at least be offered to the industry for their response.

I don't believe that you can have your cake and eat it. If you want to be a free enterpriser and you want to take risks, I just don't think that the public purse should be bailing out the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is my duty to inform you that the three--minute light is on.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think that the government should be expected to hand out money from the public purse when times are tough, but I think that some regular, permanent financial corporation such as I've suggested to provide both insurance and lending would immeasurably improve the uncertainty in the industry, which has been more dramatically pointed out this winter, perhaps, than any other. I wonder if the minister would perhaps tell us whether this kind of proposal is something that he feels has merit, and whether he and the Minister of Travel Industry together could give us any kind of information about the plans possibly underway at the present time to set up just such a lending and financing institution through the British Columbia Development Corporation.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, why the Minister of Economic Development was not asked to go down to Ottawa with the Premier. I suspect that the Minister of Economic Development has lost the confidence of the Premier. As a result, I think the Premier will support us in this motion of non-confidence in the Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot during the last few days with respect to the minister not answering questions. I'm sorry that he's just left the House, because he spoke the other night and answered a question that I had posed to him with respect to the Bear Cove development at Port Hardy. He did give an answer; that was one of the questions that he did answer in the House.

But unfortunately I have to relate to the minister that his answers were inaccurate, that they were in error. I do hope that the minister returns very quickly because this is important. It should be pointed out to

[ Page 913 ]

him, particularly since the mayor of Port Hardy is quite disturbed at this stage. He feels that they have been neglected, as I stated the other night. He feels that progress is not going on as it should with the industrial development park at Port Hardy.

I would like to read, at least for your benefit, Mr. Chairman, since the minister is not here, some of the answers that the minister gave the other night when I was asking him about the progress at Bear Cove, the industrial development site in Port Hardy. The minister said this, Mr. Chairman: "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."

I talked to the mayor of Port Hardy after the minister had given his answer in the House the other night. You know, Mr. Chairman, that's news to him. They had never heard before that they were required to provide a road service and a utility plan. They were quite surprised because the only request that they had had was to provide a list of corporations, companies and businesses that might be interested in locating at that particular Bear Cove industrial park site. I'm very surprised that the minister would say this in this Legislature, when in fact that is not the case.

The minister also said: "As of last week, the town officials were entirely in agreement with the programme." Then he went on to say: "And if you had been a good MLA, you'd have known that."

So I spoke to the mayor of Port Hardy, and I said: "Gee, tell me about these new developments. You people have been very careful in keeping me informed about what is happening at Port Hardy with this industrial development park that was purchased before the last election." I said to him: "What are the developments? What's the new programme? What did you agree to last week?" The mayor said: "What programme? We don't know of any programme." So I think that the minister should certainly be made aware of this. Mr. Chairman, when he comes back I hope you will inform him, because it's important that a minister of the Crown gives the correct information in the Legislature. Don't you agree?

As a matter of fact the mayor of Port Hardy took the time to send me a telegram. I think this telegram should be read into the record, Mr. Chairman, because it certainly relates to one of the reasons why we're moving this motion of non-confidence today. It's a long telegram; he had a lot to say. The mayor says:

HERE FOLLOWS A LETTER I SENT TO BCDC, SEPTEMBER 29, 1976. TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE RECEIVED NO OFFICIAL REPLY.

And yet the minister in his remarks the other night said they had good cooperation with them, that as of last week they were in agreement with the programme that was being proposed. And here is this telegram that I've received from the mayor of Port Hardy which says that they haven't even had an answer to their letter written September 29. He also told me that no one from the B.C. Development Corporation has been up there in recent times, probably for two or three months. Now, the letter that was written to the B.C. Development Corporation on September 29 is as follows:

DEAR SIR: THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF PORT HARDY WISHES TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL TO BCDC. WE WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE PRESENTED TO YOUR BOARD AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE CONVENIENCE AND THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR COUNCIL BE ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT. THE BEST TIMES FOR ANY OF US, AS WE ALL HOLD JOBS OTHER THAN COUNCIL, WOULD BE AFTER 8 PM DURING THE WEEK, OR MORE PREFERABLY ON A SATURDAY.

Oh, I'm glad the minister is back, Mr. Chairman, because I was pointing out to the minister, who was really quite unkind the other evening when he indicated to me that if I'd been a good MLA I would know what is happening with the Bear Cove development, that the information that he provided the House the other night is quite erroneous. I do hope that you will stand up this afternoon in order to correct the information that you gave that night.

I got hold of the mayor and I told him.... I think the minister has to know this, Mr. Chairman; it's important. I know you want to call me to order because I've already said it, but this minister must know that the information he gave the other night is incorrect. As a result, Mr. Minister, I want to show you the telegram that I have received today from the mayor of Port Hardy. All right, now I'll continue the letter, Mr. Chairman, so I'll be in order.

THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES: (1) COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO DESIGNATE ALL CROWN LAND FROM THE JUNCTION OF THE NEW BEAR COVE ROAD AND THE FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT ROAD TO BEAR COVE ITSELF AND INDUSTRIAL LAND. THE COUNCIL REQUESTS THE BCDC TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND SO IT CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT OF PORT HARDY FOR SALE OR LEASE TO PRIVATE OR PUBLIC CORPORATIONS. (2) THE COUNCIL WILL PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL ROAD, THE AFOREMENTIONED BEAR COVE FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT ROAD JUNCTION, TO THE BEAR COVE DEVELOPMENT AT THE BEAR COVE PROPERTY. (3) IT IS THE COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO SELL OR LEASE LOTS FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THIS ROAD SO TO RECOUP SOME OR ALL OF ITS INVESTMENT IN THE ROAD.

[ Page 914 ]

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I need to read this whole telegram. But I want to point out that the minister gave answers the other night in the House that were inaccurate. I want to point out some of the other inaccuracies that the minister gave us at that time.

He said: "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."

Now, Mr. Minister, the council is not aware that it's supposed to move on anything except to provide a list of people who are interested in locating on the industrial site. Are you aware, Mr. Minister, that you gave erroneous information the other night...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MS. SANFORD: ...through you, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. SANFORD: The other thing the minister said in answer to my queries about this Bear Cove development is as follows: "...and everybody is collectively working with a sawmill operator who wants 10 acres, providing he can arrange for timber supply in the town."

I mentioned this to the mayor, Mr. Chairman, and he said, "Well, now isn't that a surprise — 'everybody working collectively.'" The only thing that council had heard about the possibility of a sawmill locating there was that there was someone who was looking for a place to locate somewhere on Vancouver Island, on all of Vancouver Island. What does he mean that they are cooperatively collectively working? That's all that they'd heard, and it was given as an aside.

Now last week, and I assume that that's what he is referring to — "as of last week, the town officials were entirely in agreement with the programme" — last week, the mayor informs me, they did have somebody up, but that somebody was from the Department of Economic Development, not from BCDC. When they met with this representative from the Economic Development department, they asked him immediately about what was happening as far as the Bear Cove development is concerned. He said: "I'm sorry, council members. I'm very sorry, but I'm from the department, I'm not from the British Columbia Development Corporation, and I can't discuss the matter." Now is that what he means — that they're in full agreement with the programme as of last week?

Mr. Chairman, I fully expect that minister will get up and apologize to the House for giving that kind of erroneous information about industrial development that's happening in this province. It's a good thing that I checked with the mayor, and probably the only reason that I checked with him was that the minister accused me of not knowing what was going on within my own constituency. When he makes an accusation like that I want to find out what is new. What is it that the council has not kept me informed about? Mr. Chairman, it's the council that's not informed. They don't have the communication that they want with the B.C. Development Corporation.

I have been asked to extend an invitation on the floor of the House today to the Minister of Economic Development and to Mr. Don Duguid of the B.C. Development Corporation please to come to Port Hardy to meet with the council at the earliest opportunity. I hope the minister will stand up and say: "Yes, I accept that invitation because obviously I gave some erroneous information to the House the other night and there is some mix-up in communication here. We want to get this development going immediately and I'll be up there just as soon as these estimates are over." I hope that that's the answer the minister will be prepared to give.

But I wonder, you know, based on the kind of erroneous information that he gave the other night, how many other questions have been answered erroneously. He did not answer that many, Mr. Chairman, but how many others have had answers to questions and have not followed them up to find that the information they were given was not quite correct?

Mr. Chairman, there is one other issue that I would like to bring to the minister's attention at this time. That relates to a study which has been taking place in the Campbell River estuary with respect to the deterioration of the environment of that entire estuary. This study, Mr. Chairman, has been carried on by the federal Department of the Environment and there is now a joint federal-provincial study going on to determine the costs of relocating industry in the Campbell River estuary. It's serious, Mr. Chairman, because indications are that unless some action is taken within two years, that estuary will be dead. Since the federal government has spent a great deal of money building a fish hatchery on that Campbell River, it is important that I bring to the attention of the minister now that the costs of relocating industries in that estuary are likely to be around $15 million, and undoubtedly that department will be asked for financial assistance because many of the companies that are now located there cannot afford the costs of relocation. They must be relocated in order to save that estuary, and I'm giving the minister notice now that undoubtedly his department will be approached for funds to assist in that relocation.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will get up soon. He has sat there the entire afternoon, and I

[ Page 915 ]

hope he will get up soon in order to answer some of the questions that have been posed to him today.

MR. BARRETT: Doesn't the minister want to get up and answer some questions about the MEL Paving case?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, we're not going to discuss that now. That's a no-no. We can't discuss the MEL Paving case, can we, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell the minister that I was in his riding this weekend. The weather was very nice and we met a large number of people there. The interesting thing is that most people were saying to me: "Don who?" Some of them were saying: "Oh, that's that guy down there who gives all that stock market advice."

I also had a discussion with some people about the issue that was raised by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), which was the dehydration plant that was going ahead. What was interesting was that some time ago, almost with no notice at all, the word came apparently from the B.C. Central Credit Union to foreclose on that operation. The local credit union was extremely surprised when they got that information. They felt that in view of the development that had been taking place, what they needed was a little more time to work out the project, but nevertheless, the project would go ahead. They got, with no notice at all, instructions from B.C. Central Credit Union to foreclose. There are some indications that there was pressure put on the B.C. Central Credit Union by the B.C. Development Corporation to do just that: to see that these people did, in fact, have to foreclose.

The question that I would have for the minister is: what was the reason for the foreclosure? That has not been made clear. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked a number of questions about it. There are some people up in the minister's riding that have some ideas about it. One suggestion was that perhaps Cargill — a very large operation up there that deals with feed and that kind of thing — might be interested in taking it over. This is all happening in the minister's riding. People are not very happy about what's going on and there have been no answers.

Yesterday afternoon, before I came back, I met three farmers who happened to be living very close to where the new bridge — the road approaches — is going in and that work is scheduled to start March I and they haven't had any settlement yet from the Ministry of Highways and Public Works. They haven't heard from the minister and they haven't heard from the Highways department, and they're very concerned about it. Altogether, seven farmers are going to be affected. They're going to have some of their land taken away. Some of their farms are going to be cut in half. One farmer has the difficulty of having his homesite and three or four acres on one side of the road and the rest of his farm is going to be on the other. I asked them if they'd been in touch with their MLA. They said they had but they hadn't heard anything. Now it's not terribly surprising that that kind of performance comes out of that minister, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the job he's been trying to do with economic development, he really has far exceeded — in terms of his ineffectiveness — some of the previous Socred Ministers of Economic Development. That's really saying something considering that he would have to do even far worse than Ralph Loffmark did and he would have to do even far worse than Waldo Skillings did, but he really seems to have accomplished that. He's actually gone past Waldo Skillings.

You know, it's going to be interesting, Mr. Chairman, when we come to the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . We're going to find, again, that we're going to be dealing with incredibly ineffective people. I will say this: the effectiveness of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was demonstrated to some extent last night, I must say. He was able, with his tremendous clout, to get a plane held up for us so that we could make it from Vancouver to Victoria, and I think we all should acknowledge that. He was able to do that.

MR. BARRETT: He stopped the plane by himself?

MR. LEVI: Yes. I don't know how he did it, but he was able to do it and we all were able to make the connection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing the Minister of Economic Development's....

MR. LEVI: We're also discussing the effectiveness of the Minister of Economic Development.

MR. BARRETT: He threw a widow in front of the wheels.

MR. LEVI: Is that what he did? Yeah, but she got up and then he backed over her.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong minister.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, that's right. I'm sorry, we're dealing with the Minister of Economic Development.

[ Page 916 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the moving oil slick today?

MR. LEVI: You know, on Friday, the minister was making reference to the whole study that was done on coal. Today, we've anticipated that sometime during the day the minister would be over the shell shock that he had from most of last week's hammering he got, and that he might join the Premier in some kind of statement about what's going on in coal development. But, lo and behold, we did not get any of that, Mr. Chairman. We have no information at all on what's going to happen with the coal development. We have nothing at all, no information. The minister, in his rather plaintive way, has been asking for everybody to believe that they've got long-range plans. When he was on this side of the House all of his solutions were immediate and very short-range. Suddenly, he's gone to the other end of the scale and now he talks about long-range plans.

He also has been saying all of last week — and even today — that we have to understand that we don't have the kind of control over the economy that we thought we had. When they were in opposition, everything related to the effectiveness of a government in power. If the government in power wanted to do a job, then they could turn the economy around. Now that he's in power — he's in a position of power — and in a position to make suggestions and to give advice to the government, he's really not able to do that. What he does come out with is the kind of thing, when he said last week that one of the basic problems that we have — and he was talking about how you get things going on Vancouver Island — if you want to put an industry on Vancouver Island, you've got to have somewhere for the industry to go. But then you have to go through a whole rigmarole with the municipalities because it's very difficult to get them to lease or to make some land available.

You know, we would have thought that once this government has been elected they would have had absolutely maximum cooperation from the municipalities, because it was that side of the House that used to argue that the government of the day was doing a lot of harm to the municipalities, and therefore they were not prepared to cooperate with that kind of a government. Now we have a new government. He's telling us it's even more difficult for them to get land than it was with the previous government.

We had the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman), in what was termed by the minister "a practical suggestion" on how to get the economy moving. What was his suggestion? It was that we aid industry — that the government actually aid industry. The minister seemed to be in agreement with that. Yet all of the years he was over here, he said that the government must stay out of interfering in business. They mustn’t give any assistance: "Let the free market do its job."

Of course, that position has now been endorsed by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has got himself into the agricultural field. He's termed the marketing boards "rotten" because he believes in the free enterprise system. Yes, I'm speaking to the question, Mr. Chairman. I notice you're watching me very closely.

We have marketing boards, which are an attempt to make the free enterprise system work somewhat better. Then we have the second member for Vancouver South telling us that one of the ways we can get business going is to also have the government give some kind of assistance. Well, that was the kind of thing that the previous government did, except for one thing: if it was going to give any assistance to anyone, there had to be an equity position. No free lunches! That's what that government over there campaigned on — no free lunches. But the only suggestion that that minister recognized as being practical was exactly the one that that member said: "Free lunches again for the free enterprise system." That was the only one that he could recognize as being a good suggestion.

We would hope that before the vote is over the minister will get up and tell us specifically about the plans they have for coal development, because the Premier hasn't told us anything. That, of course, was where we were going to get all of the information from. Some of us last week were puzzled, because when the Premier went down east, he went down to talk about a number of issues, including economic development. But lo and behold, he left the economic minister behind! He didn't take- him with him. He took the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) with him, probably because of the kind of connections he might have with the federal government.

But the poor minister was here. He spent all week trying to defend the government. I guess he was hoping against hope that by the end of the week the Premier would come back and bail him out by making a big announcement that the coal development was in fact going to happen. But we don't have that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even take him to Ottawa.

MR. LEVI: Well, he didn't take him to Ottawa. You know why he didn't take him to Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. LEVI: You don't know why he didn't take him to Ottawa?

[ Page 917 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't he take him?

MR. LEVI: Well, he was shell-shocked. He's been shell-shocked for the past three weeks. He's been going through so many battles and wars that he's shell-shocked. All last week he was shell-shocked too. He's still shell-shocked today, so shell-shocked, in fact, that he's got a speech impediment. He can't even answer questions. You know, that's pretty difficult.

You can remember, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) can remember that minister when he was a member over here. He just had to stand up, take one deep breath and he'd go for something like 15 hours. He needed nothing to eat, nothing to drink — just straight ahead for 15 hours. But now we can't even get him going for 15 seconds just to answer a question.

MR. BARRETT: He looks so sad, so unhappy.

MR. LEVI: He's shell-shocked. That's really what the problem is — he's shell-shocked.

MR. BARRETT: He couldn't skate on the Rideau canal with his boss.

MR. LEVI: The important thing, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment to reduce the minister's salary is a serious one in the Legislature. Reducing somebody's salary really has to relate to the kind of gross inefficiency that merits that kind of action, gross inefficiency on that minister's part. All of the conflicts of interest which have been laid out that he has been involved in and for which he has really had no defence.... He has not given any explanation to the House. He simply sits there and hopes that sooner or later it will all be over with and nobody will notice that anything happened at all. But it's not going to be over, because this is just an amendment to reduce his salary. His estimates are not over.

MR. BARRETT: Do you remember that he used to be a real close buddy of the Premier's?

MR. LEVI: Well, they're sitting three seats away. I'm sure that sometime before 6 o'clock, we're going to have the Premier get up and really let go in defence of that minister.

MR. BARRETT: Not on your life.

MR. LEVI: You don't think that will happen?

MR. BARRETT: No way.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I'm sure it will, Mr. Chairman. The Premier is about to get up, and if the Premier can't get up, I'm sure the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) will get up. He's a great exponent of free enterprise. Unfortunately, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is gone, because he's always good for a 15-minute flyer.

MR. BARRETT: No, he's gone to buy a suit in Calgary.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he's sitting over there, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, I didn't see him. Well, we may be able to lure him back into his seat and he may just come to the defence of that minister. There are 35 members over there. Which one is going to come to the defence of the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't need any!

MR. LEVI: He doesn't need any defence, Mr. Chairman. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) — that's where the Leader of the Opposition lives — says that he doesn't need any defence. He shakes his head, the all-knowing member. He's the artistic critic of the cabinet. How would you know that he doesn't need any defence? You simply have to go up to his riding and talk to the people up there, as I did on the weekend, to find out how discredited this minister is. You know, they constantly say to you: "Don who? We never see him. He never goes up there. We write letters and he never answers them. He's not around."

His position is literally indefensible. So we will have no trouble at all in supporting this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we understand that the Premier is following a very peculiar course with the estimates this year. Ordinarily, as you know, by tradition they are put on an alphabetical order. That tradition has been broken because the Premier has decided to put all the losers on first. First of all, up goes the Minister of Economic Development and then down he goes. Then comes the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and then down he goes.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Is he not going to be second? Oh, they found another loser. Which one is it, Mr. Whip? Oh, Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the minister's estimates.

MR. BARBER: While we're on that particular minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman — throwing the weakest from the flock out first to the wolves, as the Premier has chosen to do — I think it's only fair to comment that the man is barely worth the dollar.

[ Page 918 ]

He's not in charge, you see, Mr. Chairman.

My remarks will be short, as will his tenure in office be short. His achievements are brief and so will these comments be. I wonder if the man is even worth a dollar, because it's fairly clear to those of us over here who watch this government reeling from scandal to scandal and blunder to blunder, that the man isn't running his own department at all. It's being run by judges, by commissioners and by the RCMP. He's not in charge. Judges, commissioners and the RCMP are in charge of his department and his agencies. Is he even worth a dollar? Maybe we should take up a collection and give it to the RCMP instead. They must be working overtime trying to keep up with the problems that that man has encountered and perhaps created in the administration of his department and agencies.

Among the unique achievements of this particular minister is one which will no doubt go down in history — not much recorded, I'm sure, by the Social Credit opposition but certainly noted by the people of British Columbia. He's raised, by his own estimate, the all-time annual operating loss of British Columbia Railway to the highest ever — $69 million. That's a marvellous achievement.

He's turned, as I'm informed by my colleague, public inquiries into British Columbia's No. 1 industry. It's outstripping tourism and it's certainly outstripping forestry. Thanks to this minister, public inquiries are right up there as the No. 1 industry today.

MR. BARRETT: You've done a good job, Don.

MR. BARBER: I'm particularly concerned about the way he has treated the board of directors and staff at B.C. Rail. Let me tell you why. When this minister in opposition and during the election campaigned, one of his repeated and now-forgotten promises was that he would depoliticize the board of directors of B.C. Rail, that he would remove the spectre and the subject of political influence from that and every other board and commission of government, and that in doing so he would achieve a kind of objectivity and neutrality never before seen in government operations. Needless to say, he names himself to the board of directors on his very first day of office. Needless to say, he remains on that board tonight. It's more than a little inconsistent, Mr. Chairman.

When he appointed the new board of directors, he paid them enormous compliments and praise. He said that this board was the most competent, most able, most concerned, most imaginative group that had ever been appointed to that particular board of directors. He expressed great confidence and great assurance. He told this House and anyone else who would listen — and we listened — that his appointment of this blue-ribbon panel of board members was meant to indicate a new regime, a new operations, a new quality and calibre of work.

Now what's he done, Mr. Chairman? He has slapped in the face every member of that board. He's done it by seeing the establishment of a commission of inquiry into all of its operations. By the establishment of that inquiry, which is apparently not supposed to look into any of the scandals, he's told that board of directors that they don't know what they're doing.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. BARBER: Because we are told on the one hand by the Attorney-General, whom we know is an honest man and did not talk much about the secret police when he was in opposition, that that commission would have the power to examine all of the operations and all of the concerns and the proceedings of B.C. Rail. It would presumably do so because the present board of directors is incompetent to do so. On the other hand, we were told by that same minister, when he appointed that board of directors, that they were competent to do anything. They were a first-rate, first-rank board of directors. They had earned his confidence; they should earn the confidence of the House.

Now which way is it, Mr. Chairman? Either he appointed a bunch of turkeys who don't know what they're doing and have to be covered up for by another board of inquiry — yet another commission — and was, therefore, a poor and ill-advised appointment in the first place; or, secondly, this commission with its broad powers is unnecessary and redundant. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. This minister can't have it either way; he's in trouble no matter which way he leans. He has insulted every member of this board of directors by his arrogant actions, his foolish judgments, his very poor judgment of character. He has tried to tell this House that having first of all appointed a blue-ribbon panel of board members to run the affairs, they have now been deemed incompetent and are, therefore, only to be overseeing, and presumably overlooked, by the new commission of inquiry.

MR. BARRETT: He did it all in one week.

MR. BARBER: Now which way is it? There are a number of other reasons why this minister has insulted and offended his own staff and his own appointees. First of all he's clearly been involved in a black cloud of his own creation; because we see that his department is run not by himself but by judges, by commissioners and by the RCMP. He's presided over the largest operating loss in the BCR's history — at his own estimate, $69 million. And he's insulted

[ Page 919 ]

and replaced that blue-ribbon board of competent directors by yet another board of inquiry. He's told his own people in the BCR that they are not to be trusted. Without realizing, what he's told this province is that he himself is not to be believed, because he can't have it both ways.

There's a matter that was raised in this debate a while ago in which the minister has repeatedly failed to answer. It is our information that last summer, Mr. Mac Norris, presently responsible for operations of the railway, was to have been replaced. He was to have been replaced by a gentleman who went so far — believing the minister, foolish fellow he — that he handed in his resignation to the Toronto engineering firm of which he was a member. Having handed in his resignation, he then received a phone call that informed him that he shouldn't have resigned after all, because after all the promises and all the commitments he wasn't going to be hired. It seems that after the fact, the minister discovered that the fellow was an American and therefore presumably unqualified for the position.

Who's in charge of the B.C. Railway, Mr. Chairman, that this kind of thing can go on? Who's actually running the show? Who makes those decisions? Why was the decision to hire this particular gentleman — if our information is correct — taken so far as to offer him the job and to see his own resignation only to have it turned around by a last-minute act of fear on the part of that minister, a minister who simply doesn't know what he's doing from beginning to end? We want to know whether that's correct and whether that information is accurate? I'm sure that if it is not, the minister will correct me and I will be happy to be so corrected. Apparently that this information is incorrect is not the case. The apparent fact is that once again the minister has botched it. Once again he's told us he's not even worth the dollar we're offering. Once again he has insulted and offended every single person associated with that railway, not the least of whom, of course, is Mr. Norris himself.

Now then, there's the question of the sale of the B.C. Railway to the Canadian National Railways. Evidently it was a member of the cabinet who spoke to The Vancouver Sun just a few days ago and hinted most broadly that the BCR needs a billion dollars in primary capital investment in order to make a serious go of it. The same minister also hinted that because that's probably an unlikely decision and a commitment that cannot be reached, it should therefore be considered that the whole of the B.C. Railway should be sold to the Canadian National Railways system. I'd like the minister to tell this House and to tell the B.C. Rail itself whether there's any possibility of truth to that story. I'd like the minister to tell this House whether the cabinet or any other committee of it, or whether B.C. Railway or any committee of it, has ever discussed the possibility of a sale to the CNR or any other railway interest of the BCR. Morale in the B.C. Rail is, by common account, at a near all-time low. The minister's own incompetence, his obsession with a black cloud that hangs above him and his total inability to make sensible judgments of character or administration have told that railway and its personnel that they're in some danger, not only through mal administration on the part of that particularly incompetent minister, but through the possibility that the B.C. Rail as a whole will be abandoned by this province and sold to the CNR.

The rumour is that the man who talked to The Vancouver Sun was, of course, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . I wonder if, through you, Mr. Chairman, it might not be possible for the Minister of Education to indicate whether he was the one who spilled the beans. Maybe he could smile or pass a note or indicate in some way or another whether or not.... He smiles. He smiles! I think we have the answer, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. It's fairly clear that one of the members of that cabinet — one of the Liberals in that cabinet, judging by the smile, if it's not misinterpreted; he smiles again — is forced to the position of admitting.... Poor Pat. Look at that. He's trying to keep such a straight face. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you proceed with your debate on the question?

MR. BARBER: He can't keep a straight face. Apparently one of the other members of that cabinet — one of the Liberals — is forced into the position of having to admit what that particular minister whose estimate and this particular amendment we're debating cannot admit: the mal administration under his regime is so substantial and so serious that they're going to have to consider flogging the whole thing to the CNR.

MR. BARRETT: Down-the-tube Don.

MR. BARBER: If I'm again misinformed, if it was not the Minister of Education who spilled the beans, again I will be happy to be corrected.

MR. BARRETT: It was the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .

MR. BARBER: We don't hear too many protests coming forward and I suppose we can make the correct judgment. The B.C. Rail is in limbo and in trouble because of the malpractice and the mal administration of this minister, Mr. Chairman. It's in trouble because he can't run anything himself. It's in trouble because he hired incompetents around him.

[ Page 920 ]

It's in trouble because its operating deficit — $69 million — is at an all-time high. It's in trouble because he has insulted his own board of directors — allegedly blue-ribbon and super-competent — by appointing another commission to be in charge because apparently they made an attempt to get rid of Mr. Norris and attempted to replace him with an engineer who resigned from his own firm on the assumption that the offer of the job was good. Then, having been discovered to be an American, he was told that the job was not his any longer. They've been insulted again by a talkative member of the cabinet who's told at least one member of the press, I am informed, that the B.C. Rail's capital problems are so serious and its administration problems so severe that they're considering getting rid of the whole thing and giving it to the CNR.

No wonder morale is so low, Mr. Chairman. No wonder people in his own department and his own agencies question the judgment of this particularly hopeless and hapless minister. No wonder the opposition finds it difficult to offer even a buck for his services.

MR. BARRETT: He's not a bad-looking guy, though.

MR. BARBER: I think the man should step aside, Mr. Chairman, He should step aside before he does any more damage. He should step aside before it gets any worse.

Who on the B.C. Rail wants him? His own board doesn't want him any more, and he appointed them. He has offended every one of them by appointing this other commission to do the job that they were supposedly appointed to do. His own staff don't want him because they don't know whether or not he's going to be in office tomorrow. And if he is, who is he going to talk to and what's he going to be doing? How much is he looking after his own career and how little left are theirs? Who in this House wants him? We have yet to hear a single minister opposite defend him. They can't.

And the Premier puts him up first and breaks a long-standing tradition in this House because he hopes to get the losers over with first. It's fairly clear what's going on here, Mr. Chairman; it's fairly clear what's happening, and it's this: the man has proven to be an embarrassment. He is a discredited embarrassment. He is a hopeless wreck, staggering from blunder to blunder. He's having trouble, he's having difficulty, and he's going to be lucky to hold on to his job by the end of the session. We all know it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Down the tube, gone.

MR. BARBER: I'm not sure he's even worth a buck; but if for legal reasons we have to vote for a buck, I'll vote for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe you're getting into tedious and repetitious debate. You've covered your points quite well.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, and having done so, I shall now take my place.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I find this is virtually a unique experience in this House: not one person, not a member of the back bench, not a member of the cabinet nor the minister himself stands up in his own defence. I am going to sit down this very minute just to give one of those members an opportunity to stand up, particularly the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is noted for his great periods of defence of his colleagues in this forum. Yet, Mr. Chairman, that Minister of Education knows perfectly well you can't defend the indefensible. Somebody must. Let's see who will stand up.

MR. BARRETT: Alex Fraser.

MR. COCKE: Let's see who will defend this poor creature who's been under attack all afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: Sam Bawlf.

MR. COCKE: Just one person! The busy member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) — why doesn't he come out of his grave just for a short period and stand up and defend this poor minister?

MR. BARRETT: Haddad will make him disappear!

MR. LAUK: I want to defend the minister here.

The minister has had all afternoon to reply to the charges and the criticisms that have been levelled against him in his role and his portfolio for the past week and a day. Here is a minister who has done nothing in the entire year except destroy New Democratic Party programmes. He's come up with nothing positive.

Before the session and into the session we find that his ministry and his role as a minister is blackened. He hired Arthur Weeks, or it was forced upon him. We are now in the middle of a judicial inquiry into that scandal. His role in running the British Columbia Railway is now before another judicial inquiry.

There's a conflict-of-interest charge with respect to him and his role with Ragan Construction and his role in settling the MEL Paving Case. There's a conflict-of-interest charge in his role in the BCDC's proposed purchase of land in the city of Dawson Creek. There's a political interference charge in his

[ Page 921 ]

role in tampering with the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation to approve a loan to his friends in Aspen Lok-tite Components Ltd. In his riding. There's a conflict-of-interest charge in another member of the board by the name of Morris Young who, as president of Finning tractor, took advantage of a civil servant's services.

There's another conflict-of-interest charge with one Harold Blakeley who, I understand, applied for a loan. He sits on the board of the BCDC and he applied for a loan from the Development Corporation. The loan was applied for by Garren-Blakeley Yachts Ltd. And Harold Blakeley owns that company, and he sits on the board of directors and he applied for a loan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he get it?

MR. LAUK: No, they turned him down. (Laughter.) That's why I say I want to defend this minister. They turned Harold down. Good for you, Don. Harold didn't get the two hundred grand he asked for. But I wonder whether Harold voted on it.

This is the kind of thing we see in this minister's handling of his portfolio. They have a completely cavalier fashion towards the handling of public funds and their responsibilities as ministers of the Crown. Well, I recited that all out in the hall again to one member of the press who will go nameless, and he said: "Well, nobody's perfect."

There's no response from the minister to the 3.6 plus 40 questions that have been asked him. The Selected Unanswered Questions of the Minister of Economic Development is now going on sale at every bookstore.

MR. WALLACE: Paperback, $1.95

MR. LAUK: Paperback, $1.95 — the poor minister. Well, I would never have conceived of the kind of contempt that this minister would show to the committee. He has refused to answer questions, as I say. When he has taken his place, he has twisted and avoided the truth. He has sidestepped questions. He has refused to answer others. I've questioned him on the loan application interference, and it took something like a day or more to get the truth out of him. He has answered no other questions with respect to charges of conflict of interest, unlike, I should say, other ministers on that side of the House, and ministers under our administration, who would answer questions straightforwardly when asked. I repeat an often-stated proposition that has been stated in these estimates in the past week and a day: whether the press gallery is bored, or whether the front bench is bored, or whoever is bored, the only opportunity we have as an opposition to get at the truth behind the corporate veil of Crown corporations is right here and now. I must say, regrettably, to the people of British Columbia, that the opposition has not achieved that purpose.

MR. KEMPF: It's cost them $25,000 daily.

MR. LAUK: The minister has steadfastly refused to answer questions and the truth is now hidden — I hope not forever.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 27

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.