[ Page 923 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Handicapped persons, allowance. Ms. Brown — 923

Alleged improprieties by RCMP in collection of evidence. Mr. Wallace — 925

Conflict of interest in Matsqui land purchase. Mr. Barber — 925

Composition of Workers' Compensation Board. Ms. Sanford — 925

Policy on Indian cutoff lands. Mr. Gibson — 926

Committee of Supply: Estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.

On vote 79.

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 926

Mr. Macdonald — 927

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 928

Mr. King — 932

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 934

Mr. Gibson — 936

Mr.Loewen — 938

Mr. Macdonald — 940

Mr. Nicolson — 940

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 944

Mr. Wallace — 944

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 948

Mr. Kerster — 948

Mr. Barber — 950

Mr. Nicolson — 954

Tabling reports:

Public Service Labour Relations Act for 1976. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 957

Report of regulations issued pursuant to the Provincial Elections Act during 1976. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 957

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Seated in the gallery today is a group of Victoria citizens from Victoria's Silver Threads organization. I would ask the members to bid them welcome.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Also in the gallery today is a noted resident of Port Alberni, Mrs. Kathleen McMillan, who is down visiting us in the Legislature along with her sister, Mrs. Catherine Axhorn, a resident of Victoria. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Yesterday in the city of Victoria the office of Tourism British Columbia opened its official headquarters, and helping to officiate at that ceremony was Mrs. Velda Skillings, the widow of Mr. Frank Skillings, who was the grandchild of Mr. Rithet, the man after whom the original Rithet building was named. That is not the only famous member of the Skillings family, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased to share the opening of that building with another member of the Skillings family. I would like to announce today that seated in the gallery is a distinguished ex-MLA and ex-cabinet minister of this House. I would like the House to welcome Waldo Skillings, the former Economic Development Minister.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have in the gallery today my wife and three daughters and a very good friend of mine from Texada Island, Mr. Jan Van Taves. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): We have in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tony Rudiak of Toronto, formerly of the town of Golden, and I would like the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): In the gallery today is a group of students from Nanaimo Senior Secondary School accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Tison and Mr. Little, sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming this group of students.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In the gallery today are two people who represent the strength of part of the agricultural community, and certainly the strength of the National Farmers Union. They are Mrs. Jean Leahy and Mrs. Frances Adams. They are here on behalf of the women's interest in the agricultural industry that they represent.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I'd like to join with my colleague, the other member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf), in welcoming today the people from the Silver Threads who have joined us. I hope you're not too disturbed by what you see going on. I would also like to introduce to the House the brother of a very good friend of mine. His name is Tom MacDonald and he's from the fine province of Nova Scotia. He's happily no relation to the fast-food chain. I hope you'll join us in making him welcome.

Oral questions.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS' ALLOWANCE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. I noticed he was on his feet, so I hope he's preparing to answer. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether you're going to exercise your discretionary powers on behalf of Mr. Bob Newman and allow him to keep the $300 which he received as compensation for being brutally beaten seven months ago by two thugs.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I will now take the opportunity of replying to this question, which was also asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace.)

Mr. Newman is in receipt of HPIA benefits of $265 monthly, and he earns $50 monthly hooking rugs on the incentive programme. He recently received $300 in criminal injuries compensation payments. During a conversation with his social workers, he indicated that payments had been received. At this juncture the social worker informed Mr. Newman in the following manner: one, that the income had to be reported; and two, that he should make an appointment with the social worker to discuss possible exemption.

Under federal cost-sharing regulations — and these have been in effect for a long time, Mr. Speaker — unearned income must be deducted from the amount of the benefit. However, there is sufficient latitude in the regulations to allow exemptions on a needs basis. However, despite all the publicity this case engendered, Mr. Newman has not yet met with his social worker to make the necessary needs assessment. Therefore not only does Mr. Newman's criticism appear somewhat premature, but it is impossible, due to his reluctance to make the requested appointment for the necessary assessment,

[ Page 924 ]

to indicate to this House the amount of exemption. I can assure this House, however, that Mr. Newman will be afforded the same consideration given any recipient and that any benefit exemption will conform to the federal-provincial regulations that have been in effect for several years.

MS. BROWN: I have a very brief supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Under the previous administration, I think, as the minister pointed out, there were regulations that allowed for the exemption of a certain amount of windfall income that came to people in receipt of either social assistance or the handicapped pension. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you would take this into account when you are doing an assessment of Mr. Newman's situation and allow him to keep the $300 which he has received in compensation for his beating.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the regulations, as they have been in effect for a considerable time. Certainly we are attempting to work within the regulations; we will always work within the regulations. The regulations do allow the latitude, as I expressed, for some discretion with respect to need. There is certainly no indication, and never was there any indication by this ministry, that we wouldn't give full effect to that latitude. But we certainly cannot know in advance. This happened to appear in the press before, apparently, anyone knew about it including the social worker who has regular contact with this person.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if he's considered whether this really is income. Is it not damages equivalent to the damages received in a motor vehicle accident — not taxable, not considered income under the national taxation statutes and, therefore, not anything deductible whatsoever from his allowance? That's the short answer to it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the regulation, of which, perhaps, the member for Vancouver East wouldn't be aware, as he didn't have that particular portfolio in the prior administration, doesn't spell out what type of income or how much of this type of income.

MR. MACDONALD: It isn't income at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose the amount could vary in this type of payment. The amount could vary anywhere from $300 to $30,000 — I'm not sure — or $3,000. This would have to be considered in accordance with the regulations. But this is the first time that the ministry has been faced with a situation like this, so there is no precedent.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'm still on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It goes to this broader principle of whether these funds are income. I would ask the minister, in making his consideration, to wonder whether this is compensation for very sad wear and tear on the human body and not the kind of income that any of us would want to go out and earn.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this incident brings up an interesting matter for the minister, which is that his department takes the income of any sort for people in receipt of pensions, of handicapped or welfare....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, what is your supplementary question?

MS. BROWN: My supplementary is: is the minister going to take advantage of this marvellous opportunity to reconsider what the regulations consider as income? If you're not in receipt of welfare, you can get damages. But if you are in receipt of welfare, everything is considered income and that's grossly unfair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss now the fairness or the unfairness of it. Certainly I would be prepared, and always am, to receive submissions on this type of subject. But I would like to assure the hon. member that one of the reasons why the province received very little sharing compared to, perhaps, other areas, and why we lost many shareable dollars that should have been coming to British Columbia from Ottawa, is that the previous administration perhaps not only didn't know what the regulations were but certainly paid little attention to those that were in effect. This is a two-way street and we must work in cooperation with Ottawa to bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. If we irresponsibly start ignoring regulations that have been brought into effect for good reason, you can expect trouble.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): In respect to the regulations, there has been a policy of exempting windfalls. However, surely, Mr. Minister, it is possible in this particular case to grant the money. Then what would happen, of course, is that the province would not be able to share in the expenditures on this particular case. It does not in any way affect your agreement with Ottawa for all cases but purely this case. That was the practice we used in the previous government.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your supplementary question, hon. member?

[ Page 925 ]

MR. LEVI: If they will exempt this particular case and pay it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we will deal with this case as it ought to be dealt with. I can assure the member that this will be in a very responsible manner, and so will all of these be dealt with in a responsible manner.

ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES BY RCMP
IN COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, regarding evidence given at a recent trial. In the murder trial of David Ross in Nanaimo, evidence was presented that one of the witnesses was questioned non-stop for 23 hours until he broke down completely, and that this witness was then offered $50,000 and safe passage to Australia, plus immunity from prosecution, if he would provide evidence. I would like to ask if the Attorney-General has been made aware of what appear to be highly questionable practices by the RCMP. If so, has the Attorney-General ordered any investigation in this particular case?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I received a memorandum this morning to the effect that a complete report will be on my desk on February 21. I'll respond to your question at that time.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? I'm not specifically referring to this case, but there was a recent drug trial where another witness, I understand, was offered $25,000 to give evidence. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can tell the House if it is a regular practice for police investigators to offer large sums of money to potential witnesses for their evidence, and whether, in fact, in the cases that have occurred in recent months the Attorney — General and his department have been consulted prior to the decision to make such large payments, or if this was within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor at the time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take it as notice today.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
IN MATSQUI LAND PURCHASE

MR. BARBER: My questions are to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It concerns the allegations of conflict of interest in the purchase of certain properties in the Matsqui district by MSA Development Ltd., and in particular by the local treasurer, Mr. McIntyre. My first question to the minister is: has he received the report and documentation sent to him several months ago — or has he been able to trace it, as it's evidently gone astray — by the newspaper that first raised this matter? Has he received the matter or has he been able to trace these matters?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I was notified yesterday that some material had been sent. Subject to correction, it appears that the material which was sent was in fact a newspaper clipping. I don't expect the inspector of municipalities to respond — with all due respect to the press — to a newspaper story.

I am informed, however — and this may lead into the member's second question or supplementary — that the mayor of Matsqui has correspondence en route to my office now. It has not yet been received.

MR. BARBER: We're pretty good friends, Mr. Speaker, and he's anticipated my supplementary. I have received some other information and I'd be happy to share it with you. I presumed that you had received all of it. My question is: is the minister prepared to order an inquiry, should the information which I will provide, the newspapers provided, and the mayor provides, indicate that there are sufficient grounds for inquiry into these charges of conflict of interest on the purchase of this particular property?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The inspector of municipalities views very seriously any material which is placed before him or his staff relating to alleged irregular conduct or impropriety in any municipality or in any local government jurisdiction, including regional districts. I don't order the inquiry; it is referred to the inspector of municipalities. I'm sure the hon. member is familiar with section 728 of the Municipal Act which sets out the steps that are — to be followed. But I emphasize that the inspector and this minister certainly view seriously any allegations with respect to improper conduct in local government by elected or appointed officials.

COMPOSITION OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The IWA has presented a brief to the minister calling on him to fire all of the commissioners of the Workers' Compensation Board. I'm wondering if the minister has made a decision on that request.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): In response to the member's question, I have not made a decision on that request. The decision is not mine to

[ Page 926 ]

make.

MS. SANFORD: With respect to the Workers' Compensation Board, the minister has taken as notice a series of questions that relate to the number of people interviewed for chairman of that board, which certainly is his responsibility — the number of people who applied, the number of people who are still waiting — in addition to another series of questions on the Workers' Compensation Board. I'm wondering if he's prepared to answer those at this time. That is three weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the minister has had any discussions with the Premier on the matter of replacing him as Minister of Labour with someone who might be able to do the job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

POLICY ON INDIAN CUTOFF LANDS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same minister on a different subject. On January 12 of this year the minister stated that he hoped to have a federal-provincial position on Indian cutoff lands to present to the Indian negotiators within a month. The month has now passed; I wonder if he could tell us how that stands at the moment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am still awaiting a response from the federal minister to the matters which were discussed between us at a meeting in Calgary. My office has been in touch with the federal minister's office. We are told that correspondence is being prepared to send here for the meeting, as is being suggested by the federal minister. Like you, Mr. Member, I'm becoming impatient with the delay.

Orders of the day.

The House in committee of supply; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon in the House there were what I consider to be some very serious allegations made with regard to a particular civil servant in my ministry. I thought I would like to inform the House of the complete circumstances surrounding this particular occasion because I don't mind being dragged through the gutter myself, but I don't think that we should attack civil servants.

With regard to the charge made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) implying improper performance of the duties of this civil servant, first of all, Mr. Worsley is the director of industrial locations in the Ministry of Economic Development. The industrial locations division has the objective of working closely with regional districts and local governments in all parts of the province to provide guidance and assistance in helping them to improve the climate for business and industrial development in their jurisdictions. Also, they help to co-ordinate their efforts with the provincial government departments and agencies.

The specific objectives of this division are: to act as a catalyst with various communities in co-ordinating their activities with broader provincial industrial development objectives; to assist in the identification of suitable sites for major industry; and to ensure that each community will have sufficient industrial land to allow for expansion of local industries and for the accommodation of new industry; to assist in the documentation and correlation of regional economic, geological, engineering, environmental and social data as it relates to industrial development in each community.

This gentleman was not seconded to Finning Tractor, nor has he ever been seconded to any company. In performing his co-ordinating role to help facilitate industrial development in British Columbia, he did not go to Sparwood, but rather made all his contact by phone, mail and inter-departmental meetings.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I notice that the member for Vancouver Centre, who made these allegations, is not in the House, so maybe when he returns — perhaps some of his party could relay the message to him — I think he should apologize.

But this brings up a subject which I have identified in this House before. I have correspondence here from Sparwood, which for the edification of the House I might point out.

I mentioned in the House last week that economic development would go to communities that want economic development. However, there is one other aspect of this. That particular community may want economic development, but may have its hands tied by other departments of the government.

I just want to quote from the letter sent to Mr. Worsley on May 11 from the district of Sparwood, because I think it's very interesting. This letter was sent to Mr. Worsley from the municipal clerk in the district of Sparwood.

"It should be noted that Finning is

[ Page 927 ]

proposing a rather large development that engages a considerable number of local residents. A development of this magnitude should be a definite asset to the economic stability of Sparwood and should only be discouraged for very sound reasons, and then only if such reasons cannot be overcome by restrictions or conditions."

In another letter dated June 11, along the same lines, and from the same municipal clerk, she says that she has written a second time for a decision. I think she shares the sentiments not only of municipalities but of industry trying to locate in certain parts of the province. She says:

"Needless to say, the land development and subdivision process in this area is somewhat frustrating. The two industries — Kaiser and Crows Nest Industries — cannot seem to come to terms. These firms, along with the Department of Highways, the department of water resources and the Land Commission, would discourage even the most persistent would-be subdivider. Any assistance you could give would be appreciated."

As I said, I merely quote this because I think it tells us of the frustrations that many industries and many communities are having in trying to bring economic expansion and to provide jobs in this province. That is one of the reasons that the committee of economic planning has identified this problem.

With the cooperation of the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Highways and Public Works and other ministries in the government, having identified the problem, have sat down to outline some rules, regulations and guidelines so that these communities, hopefully, will not be suffering the same frustration that they have in the past and will suffer in the future. Hopefully, they will invite industry and economic development to their communities, and hopefully, we have made a great step forward into paving the road to making it easier for economic expansion to take place in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, hon. members, I would like to draw your attention to the 18th edition of May, under general restrictions on debate on supply. May says:

"Regarding the general conduct of debate on supply, it may be observed that remarks on the conduct of a servant of the state made on the estimate containing his salary must be restricted to his official conduct only and that the actions of a high public servant cannot be criticized only upon substantive motion."

I would like to draw that to the attention of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on the Worsley matter, I noticed the minister didn't quote any language from the first member for Vancouver Centre which criticized Worsley. I didn't understand that he criticized Worsley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

MR. MACDONALD: He didn't think there was propriety in Finning having a member on the BCDC board and then Worsley going out to help them with a subdivision. Do you think that's right, Mr. Premier? I think it's wrong, myself, that a member of a board like BCDC who comes from a company should enlist the services of that department to assist them with their business dealings. You think it's right, eh? This is the new order in British Columbia! There's a whole different set of ethics in the course of one year under the Social Credit government. Apparently that's all right. You can put a man on the Energy Commission, and then in an energy matter he can invoke the help of the Department of Energy with his own business. I don't know.

Well, it's quite a transformation in a very short space of time. But I didn't rise to get the Premier up because he's preaching a whole new set of ethics here and I've got lots of time to listen to that — another year or two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair, hon. member?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying the minister is a book burner, but you have the Coal Task Force report commissioned by the former minister in two parts. The first part is of the technical subcommittee of the Coal Task Force, and that I have. Any member can get that in the library. But volume 2, the spicy part that tells us about the coal resources of British Columbia, the rail costs, the terminal wharfage facilities that are needed to ship it out, the townsites, the labour problem, the costs of transportation — all of these things — has been surreptitiously published and not distributed to the members of the Legislature. There are only 13 copies of volume 2 printed and distributed to members of a cabinet committee.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, oh! Thirteen! The unlucky minister!

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. Liberal leader was saying the other day that some of this should be public. While this material is suppressed — and that was never the intention of the Coal Task Force; it should give us a lot of technical data about the

[ Page 928 ]

Bullmoose claim and the others, which is important — certainly in the case of energy resources, when the Energy Commission made a report on field prices, or whatever it was, that was immediately made public even though it contained policy recommendations to the government. And it should be, you know. If you had a freedom of information Act you wouldn't be able to suppress reports like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: And while you suppressed them you have companies like British Petroleum who approached Brameda-Teck on the coal leases around Sukunka, and they are paying up to $30 million — $28 million to Brameda and $1.2 million to Teck — to purchase coal leases. Now I ask the minister: when that kind of activity is going on, when there is speculation in resource licences and exploration permits in the province, and when private companies like Teck and Brameda are making a very good thing out of the speculative market in exploratory coal licences, not leases — they've never advanced to that stage — is it not right that the public who are watching that game can follow it in an intelligent way by seeing the policy recommendations of the Coal Task Force?

If the public can't see it and the members of the Legislature can't see it, how can we evaluate whether this was just another speculative adventure? Those coal leases around Sukunka started with Pine Pass, eh? They were discovered a long time ago. Then Brameda came in and paid so much, and then Teck came in and got 47 per cent of Brameda and paid so much. Then Brascan came in with an option to buy and dropped the option. All the way along the road millions of dollars were being made in the speculative transfer of coal licences. Now British Petroleum comes along, and surely it must have had access to the kind of information that I am saying the members of this House are not having. Does the minister say that the second volume contents were not made available to British Petroleum and that they blindly are going to lay out $30 million of their own money to purchase 20 coal licences out of the 25? It's not the whole thing at all — just 20 of them. The good one, the Gates sector — which is pit mining, I believe — the shallow one, is not included in the deal.

Did they pay out that money without knowing something that you're denying the members of the Legislature? There's only one way to go, Mr. Chairman. I should talk to you. There's only one way to go with public documents and public reports, and that's to let all of the people see them when they come into your office. There's no alternative to that. The minister is bound to have had talks with British Petroleum. They would never have invested $30 million in licences in B.C. unless they had some assurance that some money was going to be paid by the provincial government. They wouldn't do that blind, would they, Mr. Minister? Did they have access to the contents of volume 2, which is on your desk, and to one of the 13 copies that are available?

MR. GIBSON: They must have known something.

MR. MACDONALD: They must. They know more than we do in the Legislature, and we're the elected representatives of the people. This is not letting the sun shine in. If there was a freedom of information bill passed, this kind of thing could not happen.

I am asking the minister specifically: will you table volume 2, of which there are now 13 copies? We'll be glad to run off the extra ones. Table one and we'll make copies. It will be a valuable document. Will you table that volume 2, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Economic Development.

MS. BROWN: Oh, there's a new Minister of Economic Development!

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): About time!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Premier.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I fortunately wasn't here last week when most of what passes for debate from the opposition was spouted forth in this House, but judging from reading Hansard I missed nothing more than the usual series of insults, half-truths and nothing constructive from the opposition at all. Mr. Chairman, that wasn't so bad that that type of attack was continued in this House by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who has not brought dignity to this House this session, has not brought any credit to the parliamentary system and, in fact, has made a series of charges and statements that he's been afraid to back up or say outside the House where he is not guaranteed legislative immunity and privilege. He, in fact, is taking advantage of this House and abuses this House, and it brings shame to all of us in this House. The fact that that member yesterday, in his continuing attack, chose to try and bring an attack on a public servant of this province...

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Read the Blues!

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): You're twisting again!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...is indicative of the depths to which that member and that party will

[ Page 929 ]

stoop in order to continue the vendetta against this government and the people who threw them out of office in December, 1975. Now if the people of B.C. expect action from the government, they also expect intelligent discussion from the opposition. We're willing to take suggestions on how to better this province. But reading through the debate that went on last week while I was in Ottawa, dealing, incidentally, with initiatives proposed by this minister, initiatives that should have been taken years ago while that party was in government.... It's a sad commentary on the state of disarray into which that party's fallen that they have to continue to resort to these types of tactics — particularly the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is the former Minister of Economic Development in the government that was the New Democratic Party, and who continues to carry on a vendetta against this minister, solely because in 14 months this minister has done more for this province than that minister did and that government did, and solely because, Mr. Chairman, that minister not only did nothing but created part of the problems for this province. In a government of disasters, he was the major disaster.

It wasn't a matter of getting this province going. This province was going when we took over, but it was going downhill. It was in stopping that slide, Mr. Chairman, and getting it stopped and getting all areas of this province moving that was the challenge that was given to the present Minister of Economic Development. That minister has taken on responsibility for what was the No. 1 failure of the last government — the No. 1 failure in providing jobs, in providing economic planning and providing opportunity in this province.

It's that sad state in our history — from 1972 to 1975 — when the basis for the continuing unemployment that we took over was created. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the most alarming statistic of all for which that administration and that former minister, who has made these unfounded charges many times in this House this year, will be remembered is that between 1972 and 1975 British Columbia's share of the world trade or export market has dropped from 0.711 per cent to just 0.467 per cent. That's a one-third drop during the term of office of that former government. And that member, who initiated what I consider to be the height of an insult to this House, a non-confidence motion in this minister yesterday, was the man responsible. He was the man who should have been building this province and getting it going. Yet after the voters have dealt with that government and that minister, he continues to try and explain away their failure by attacking the present minister, who's provided more planning and more opportunity for this province in just 14 or 15 months.

This minister, Mr. Chairman, has created initiatives in the DREE programme that we've taken to Ottawa. Everyone knows that British Columbia hasn't had its share of DREE dollars and federal dollars in creating economic opportunities in this province, because the last government did not take the opportunity to meet their commitment to this province and the people who are now — and were when we became government — unemployed. They did not take advantage of programmes, as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has said. They didn't even bother to read the regulations or the manual, and this province lost dollars not only in economic programmes but in services and programmes for people. All because you didn't understand that you had to deal with the government in Ottawa. They have provided programmes and you missed the boat.

We only got $6 per capita in DREE. What did they get in other provinces? They got anywhere up to $86 per capita in the Atlantic provinces. But in British Columbia we got just $6, because they never took advantage of the programmes that were there.

When I was in Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, I was not there initiating programmes, but taking the opportunity and advantage of all the work done by this Minister of Economic Development in making proposals to Ottawa: in DREE; in the incentives programme; in ARDA; in the northern road programme. They were detailed proposals that until now haven't been forthcoming from British Columbia. They were not forthcoming under the last government, to the detriment of our people and our province. But under this minister we've made definite proposals to do something to get this province moving not downward but upward and forward again, to create some employment not just in specific areas of the province but in the whole of the province, and to provide economic opportunity for the whole of the province, not just for selected areas.

This minister and his department have been working on a crash programme because....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right — a crash programme of activity, Mr. Chairman....

MR. KING: Crash Phillips!

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...a crash programme of economic proposals because of the lack of action taken before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crash Phillips!

[ Page 930 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll deal with the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) in a moment. I'll deal with you in a moment.

MS. SANFORD: Another 20,000 unemployed in the last month.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this minister has created definite proposals that we will hopefully sign with the government in Ottawa to meet the April I starting date on five-year programmes — not just cosmetic ones for window-dressing, but programmes that will attack the real root of the economic difficulties that face our province, programmes that will meet the needs of all areas of the province. I say that minister deserves full credit.

It's not surprising that this government is getting renewed interest from the rest of Canada as suddenly being aware of our greater responsibility in taking advantage of these programmes and coming into what is called Canada, because, apparently, this didn't happen under the last government or the last minister. Yet that former minister who made attack after attack in this House isn't even present today, after making very serious charges against a public servant yesterday.

MR. SKELLY: You're twisting the facts, as usual.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this minister has not only had the responsibility for building the economy but he's also had responsibility for two very key Crown corporations...

MR. SKELLY: And several royal commissions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...the B.C. Railway and the B.C. Development Corporation. He's made strong moves to try and solve some of the problems of both those corporations. He more than anyone has worked to meet the commitment we made to bring in a non-political board of directors...

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on!

MS. BROWN: You're too much.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...to bring in people of ability. And the first, second or third member for Vancouver East today stands up and attacks one of these members of this board...

MR. MACDONALD: Who?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...because he suggests that we should only have losers leading our Crown corporations. He doesn't want successful people who can do something for the province. His suggestion is to continue their practice of appointing losers to key positions. Well, this government is going to challenge British Columbians out there — people of ability and commitment to this province, not necessarily to some political doctrine as they are committed to on that side of the House, but people who are concerned about their province, who are willing to take the directorships in these Crown corporations for the good of the province.

I think it's an insult — and you should applaud that — that when these people are prepared to make this sacrifice that some people — and some members of this House, Mr. Chairman — for cheap political advantage will try and drag their names and their motives and their intentions down in this House, where they have immunity and privilege, and will make it practically impossible for us to continue to attract the people of ability who have been forthcoming so far. I think it's a shame that in desperation for issues, the former Attorney-General and member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is so concerned about holding on to his seat from the assault from the rear by Bob Williams that he has to stoop to attacking one of the directors of the B.C. Development Corporation.

Mr. Chairman, this House should be above this type of politics. I was hopeful that perhaps the opposition, along with all members of this House, would try and deal with the very serious problems of the economy of British Columbia as this minister has done. He's dealt with the railway and a new board of directors, and with the B.C. Development Corporation. Those directors have taken hold and, in the case of the railway, those directors have moved in on what were labour difficulties and labour problems. I'm sure the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), as the former labour minister and a director of the railway, full well understands how those problems develop, when many of the difficulties were initiated. I'm sure he is concerned, along with the rest of us, that those problems will be resolved permanently.

They've moved into the problem of construction; those directors have moved into the areas of planning for the future — new routes and new commodities that that railway will carry — to help them in their job. This railway has more than financial difficulties; this railway has been the centre of a political storm. The government has called on a royal commission to look into all aspects of that railway. I expect the commissioners to look into all aspects of that railway, including all construction contracts with all companies, and the action of all directors and management.

I expect that all the members of this House who have been speaking under legislative immunity will make their same remarks to the council under oath.

[ Page 931 ]

They'll have that opportunity. I know the member for Vancouver Centre isn't here. He didn't, apparently, deliver a speech in this House for which he circulated speech notes that I consider the commission should be interested in. But I have a copy of them and I'd be pleased to send them to the commission under his name. All he has to do is show up and acknowledge them.

Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that that commission will provide an opportunity and a forum for all those to prove to the public that they are concerned with the railroad and not just cheap political advantage, that they're willing to back up their statements and not abuse the privilege of this House. I expect all of them to make the same statements to that commission that they've made in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, this minister is a good minister. This minister is an outstanding minister who has tackled some of the most important areas of the sad legacy that was left to us by the NDP. His hasn't been a two-hour day, or a four-hour day, or a six-hour day; it has been long hours seven days a week ever since this government came to office. If the former cabinet had collectively put in as many hours as this minister, this province wouldn't have been in the sorry mess it was the day we took over.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This province would be better off if he only worked two hours a day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, you're right, Mr. Member for Mackenzie. We'd have been better off if some of your former ministers had never shown up at all. (Laughter.) I'm always willing to take your advice, and once again you've passed the best comment on your colleagues.

MS. BROWN: Distortionist!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to thank you.

I'd like to question the Liberal leader, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). Yesterday he stood in the House and quoted figures concerning northeast coal. I'd like to caution him on the indiscriminate use of hypothetical figures plucked out of somewhere, because two things are going on now in the northern part of this province: studies into a northern transportation system that will provide another major port for Canada and British Columbia, a major port that will deal with many commodities to take the pressure off and give security to the grain farmers who complain whenever the Vancouver ports are shut down or crowded or unable to ship their product. It is a very important commodity for Canada: a west coast port one day closer to the Orient; a transportation access that has better grades and easier access, in fact; a port in a transportation route that was initially to be the major transportation system across British Columbia. It was to carry the original silk trains from the Orient to New York. It's an area and a transportation system that has been neglected for many years and not given opportunity.

That transportation system is of importance to British Columbia, but it's of greater importance to Canada. It can provide the additional access for potash from Saskatchewan, or raw materials, or finished products. It can carry grain from Alberta; it can carry other commodities as well. One of the major commodities that can make that northern transportation system a reality is the bringing on stream of northeast coal.

Along with that transportation system being studied by two governments — the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia — it is also involving studies by two railways — the British Columbia Railway and the CNR. It has also brought together, along with governments, utilities and transportation systems, the private sector. All three of those areas are conducting studies into the viability and costs connected with the development of this major resource. They are also dealing with the price and contract that could be achieved for this important commodity.

I know that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, in quoting end-product figures or contract figures, is well aware that you can't apply the figures that are presently in force in the southeast because of the higher quality of the northeast coal. I'm sure he's aware of that. Because of its higher quality, Mr. Chairman, studies into the value of that coal under contract are part of the continuing studies that are going on between the governments, the private companies and the transportation system.

It's premature to toss out speculative figures. Mr. Chairman, when all the facts are in as a result of the studies that are going on now — when all of the studies are completed, when the facts are in — I'd like this House to know that that information will be shared with British Columbians. However, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano has good connections in Ottawa. He might ask whether they are releasing the figures. They are part of the agreement.

MR. GIBSON: Would you like them to?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He might have one of the opposition in their House raise the question to them.

MR. GIBSON: Give the word!

HON. MR. BENNETT: But, Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that he does no service to the public's understanding of the problem by frivolously tossing

[ Page 932 ]

out figures prematurely, before all of the studies are in.

What this ministry is trying to do, and what this government is trying to do, is work closely with all of the components I have mentioned to develop an economic plan that will help not only northern British Columbia, but also all of the province and, in fact, will be a major economic factor to our country, a factor in international balance of payments proposed, and a factor in giving us an additional west coast export facility and transportation link much needed in this country. We are positive about this proposal, but it would be foolhardy to plunge ahead and announce its initiation before all of the facts are in.

What this minister is doing, what this department is doing, and what this government is doing, is continuing to work, utilizing all of the experts and all of the resources that are at hand, for government to come up with the type of information that will allow us to make the types of decisions that are as important as this decision will be to this province. It is important that all of this planning and research go into it before committing governments, companies, transportation systems to the hundreds of millions of dollars that may be involved in the projects and a commodity of this size.

I will say that this minister, with the initiative he has shown, has brought the reality of that project two years closer to British Columbia and Canada today than any other minister of government could have. He has cut through red tape and he's initiated action in our own government that many thought couldn't have taken place in such a short period of time. The action they have shown — and I give credit to his department — has prompted the same initiative and the same type of action from the Government of Canada in Ottawa. I am proud to say they have developed a strong working relationship, but that relationship and that effort had to start somewhere. It started not just with people. It started with one man — one man who was given the responsibility for developing an economic plan for this province to bring us out of the doldrums, and an economic plan to provide some stability to this province. We were fortunate that when we were elected we had such a man, and that man is the present Minister of Economic Development.

I'd like to say to you that when this province starts to develop the type of economic impetus we had before our unfortunate three-and-a-half year experiment with that group over there, when that impetus returns, and that job opportunity, and that investment opportunity is once again part of British Columbia, we can look not to a government, but we can look to one man for making it all happen. I am pleased to speak out and say that that minister has my support, he has the support of his colleagues, but he also has the support of the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. members, I would very much like to introduce to the assembly a grade 10 class from the Convent of the Sacred Heart school — which, I may say, my wife went to at one time — in company with my very good friend, Sister Connelly. We all wish you the very best in Victoria today.

MR. KING: Every time that I think the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett's little boy is starting to mature into a competent politician, he blows it. I'm extremely disappointed and embarrassed for the government by the performance we just witnessed from the Premier. I see him heading for the door now. I wish he would stick around for a while...

MR. WALLACE: Hit and run!

MR. KING: and learn some of the facts that go on in this House. Apparently he either can't read, or he has been misinformed in his absence in Ottawa about what transpired in the House during the week or so. Mr. Chairman, the opposition has indeed offered constructive criticism of the Economic Development minister's portfolio and his handling of it. We have offered criticism, as we are bound to do as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No answers!

MR. KING: The point that troubles me, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier seems to have some misconception about the role of parliament and about the role of the official opposition. He seems to feel that there is something improper about discussing the conduct of ministers and, indeed, the civil service in this chamber.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Just keep it out of the gutter.

MR. KING: He seems to challenge and taunt everyone that they should be discussing the province's business out in the corridors or out in the public forum somewhere. Certainly there is an opportunity for that at election time, but this chamber, under our parliamentary customs, Mr. Chairman, is the forum where the conduct of a minister's administration and the expenditure of government funds are viewed and questioned by the opposition members. I find it curious that the Premier of the province objects to that procedure. Perhaps that speaks something of the arrogance that this government has learned in just over a year in office, because they seem to resent the opposition even deigning to question what the ministers have

[ Page 933 ]

done.

I find it absolutely laughable, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier comes on with a eulogy or some kind of statement of support for the Minister of Economic Development and talks about him getting the province moving. The minister has yet to present to this Legislature any plan, any economic thrust which he has underway which would start to come to grips with the 112,000 people that are unemployed in the province. Our government had undertaken initiatives, such as the steel mill, such as the Afton Mine at Kamloops, which mercifully has been allowed to continue. But the steel mill and certainly some of the coal developments have been interrupted and halted by this government and that minister's conduct. Is it any wonder that members on this side of the House query the conduct of that minister?

We have seen the highest executive in his office dismissed summarily, apparently for cause, by the minister, accused of dealing in stocks through inside information emanating from that minister's office. We have seen the man's constituency secretary dismissed and we've seen two other members of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, which is an agency he has some authority for too, also lose their jobs. Is it any wonder that the opposition is questioning the integrity of that man's office, Mr. Chairman?

For the Premier to come in with that kind of shallow defence is not only laughable, I think it's insulting to this chamber.

The Premier is fond of talking about new initiatives that the government is undertaking with the federal government to obtain sharing in a variety of programmes with the province of British Columbia. Now the Premier apparently doesn't know much about the history of British Columbia. I can tell you that when we assumed office in 1972, we found that we were indeed losing vast sums of shared capital from the federal source, mainly, and I say solely, as a direct consequence of former Premier W.A.C. Bennett's empty-chair policy in Ottawa. Remember the federal — provincial conferences where B.C. was represented by an empty chair? The Premier of that day, the Social Credit father of the son here, didn't even find it appropriate to travel down to Ottawa and participate in discussions on what B.C.'s share of national revenue should be.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that within the Department of Education and within the Department of Labour, we were losing $18 million a year for vocational training costs as a result of the former Social Credit government ignoring federal-provincial discussions. If the son of the father objects to that policy, he should have had a talk to his dad years ago and turned things around so that we would have been on a par in terms of equality in federal funds with the rest of the provinces in Canada. My colleague, the former Minister of Education, and I were able, and that can be demonstrated beyond any question, to bring about greater parity and greater opportunity for British Columbia to collect those training dollars, and, in fact, did so.

There was a whole variety of areas where B.C. was suffering on a per-capita comparison with the other provinces. Now it's true that there's probably still some of those areas left. But rather than the Premier coming in here and trying to point the finger at the NDP government, he should know that that policy was one that evolved over many years as a result of neglect by his predecessor, his father.

The Premier and the Minister of Economic Development got up today, Mr. Chairman, and they talked about innuendo; they talked about attacks on civil servants; they talked about apologies to the House. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the benefits of the three years in office that the New Democratic Party brought to this province — one of the minor benefits, but certainly a significant one — was Hansard, a verbatim record of debates in this House. It's fine for ministers and the Premier to get up and twist and distort speeches that are made in this House, but I advise, Mr. Chairman, people to read the printed record.

Our first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) did not accuse any public servant of any misdemeanour. He simply questioned the propriety of someone involved in the industrial development bank at the same time representing a private client.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that's the proper function of the opposition. The government members who are shouting "smear" should recognize that when we have seven different judicial or royal commission inquiries going in this province at one time, there usually is some foundation for the questions that the opposition raises on the floor of this House. Otherwise, how do you justify the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds in judicial inquiries to get to the bottom of impropriety which has been visited upon this province since your government was elected.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Your innuendo.

MR. KING: Innuendo. Well, Mr. Chairman, if my friend for Burnaby down there is seriously suggesting that the government is spending public funds to clear up innuendo with respect to MEL Paving, with respect to the Grizzly Valley affair, with respect to certain municipal land dealing, then that's a terrible indictment of his government. That's a terrible indictment. If there is no substance to the charges, what would the government be prepared to spend the taxpayers' dollars for on the public increase?

[ Page 934 ]

MR. LOEWEN: Smear!

MR. KING: Nonsense, and irresponsible. Of course there is substance. Even if there is not, the opposition in this House is the watchdog of the public interest. If we have here a government that has become so arrogant that the Premier gets up and challenges members to repeat outside and talks about investigating members of the opposition — as he did a week ago — who questioned government action, we're moving toward dictatorship in this province. It's no longer parliamentary government but arrogant dictatorship. That's what it is and I have never seen an attitude like this in British Columbia before.

Certainly the former Social Credit government was pretty entrenched and pretty archaic in some of their views. But the former Social Credit Premier did have a basic respect and understanding of the British parliamentary system which seems to be completely absent from this group, Mr. Chairman. I think it's an absolutely dangerous trend. Certainly the opposition has a responsibility to be mature and to not put forward suggestions that are going to be damaging to any individual. But to infer that questions asked about the conduct of office are a personal attack on civil servants is wrong. It's not borne out by the record of debate. It apparently is an attempt to distort the facts and to discourage the opposition from fulfilling the role for which the people of British Columbia sent us down here. That's to make sure that this government acts with all propriety; that they are expending the public funds in a proper and responsible way; that friends of the government, on the basis of patronage or of party affiliation, are not benefiting over the average citizen of this province. That is the role of the opposition. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that no one over here intends to be deterred by condescending lectures from the Premier of the province or anyone else. So if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, because we intend to sit here and we intend to keep this government honest, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, those were very interesting remarks from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Chairman, it is "leader," isn't it? Yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's trying to become the leader.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there have been statements made in this Legislature that I went to Japan and killed the steel mill deal...

MS. BROWN: You sure did!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...which the member for Vancouver Centre alleges was in the bag. I would just like to point out to the members that there are only three new blast-furnace steel mills proceeding in the world today: one for Stelco, the Nanticoke mill at Lake Erie — and it's slowed down. As a matter of fact, in an article in the paper dated November 18, it says: "Peter Gordon, chairman of the Steel Company of Canada Limited (Stelco), said Wednesday that the company will not operate its Nanticoke steel mill until the beginning of 1980 because steel demand is growing more slowly than predicted."

Ogashima, in Japan, which is a consolidation of three old mills, is being constructed but it's not to bring on at the present time; and the Brazil — and there's an interesting fact: 40 per cent of the costs of the steel mill in Brazil are being subsidized by the state plus tax write-offs to make steel internationally competitive.

MR. MACDONALD: Why did you go to Japan?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member for Vancouver East says, why did I go to Japan? I went to Japan to come to an amicable conclusion of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to wind it up, to bury it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member for Vancouver East does not understand the plain facts. He's demonstrated that several times in the House with regard to economic development. You should stick to law.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't answered the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now the other mills — a mill in west Australia, a mill in Nova Scotia and a mill in the U.S.A. — have all been deferred because of very rapidly increasing costs and lack of market. However, we haven't really ceased our negotiations with the Japanese. We've merely deferred them. But I think I should also inform the House that the northeast coal deal — as the member for Vancouver Centre full well knows — was not based on any steel mill. I don't want to accuse a member in his absence. But if he espoused that as a policy of his government, the policy was not a proper policy, because that wasn't the case at all. If the steel mill was constructed in British Columbia, it would use about two million tons of coking coal a year.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked some very intelligent questions in the Legislature yesterday. I will try and give him a few answers to some of his questions.

The list of studies that were carried on during the past summer include: a study of the coal resource; a

[ Page 935 ]

transportation subcommittee which studied mapping, rail routes, highway routes, access, et cetera; an environment and land use subcommittee; a manpower subcommittee; a townsite and community development subcommittee; and a general analysis of the overall project. Some of the results of those studies have allowed us to put an overall initial determination on the project to negotiate with Ottawa and to continue further studies.

The member knows that these studies were initiated last year, but the member also stated that northeast coal is not economic at a price of $55 per ton. I just want to say that you can't determine the price of a house until you decide where you are going to build it, who's going to build it and all the other costs. So there are definitely ongoing studies.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It depends on your determination of the subsidy, and I'm not going to get into that. Let's take the St. Lawrence Seaway, for instance, which was a joint venture between the United States and Canada. You have to look back on it and say: "Was it good for Canada?" We haven't paid back any of the initial costs yet; as a matter of fact, we can hardly keep up the interest payment. But you have to look at it from the point of view of the complete socio-economic benefits it has given to Canada. Maybe you would suggest a royal commission to study that at that day.

You have to look at the Pine Point Railway, which was built and passed over. I've gone through this many times.

You have to look at the extension, for instance, of the railway north of Quesnel into the Peace River country. When that railway was built, the government of the day didn't have a cut-and-dried deal that there were going to be so many pulp mills built and so many sawmills built. Certainly we will do all the studies that are necessary to determine the viability of this project. But the member well knows that it's not always possible to tie up some of the unforeseen things. We will endeavour, before the project goes ahead, to put a handle on everything we possibly can. We're not rushing into it headlong.

With regard to the railroad, I assure you that I and this department will certainly demand that every railroad is studied in sufficient detail to determine that we are choosing the proper route, and also to determine the costs, as near as possible, of that railroad before it is.... Because that's very important. I don't want the wrong railroad put in there. So I just want to say that that's ongoing.

With regard to coal supply and coal demand, there are several studies that have been done. This department has commissioned studies. We have ongoing studies with the federal government. You can rest assured of that.

MR. MACDONALD: What happens to them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You ask what I did in Japan. I have a commitment from the Japanese that they will move to increase their supply of coal from British Columbia. You may say that's not a positive deal per ton, but we have to rely, also, on the.... We're not signing the agreements — the individual coal companies will be out there selling the coal.

But I'm going to quote from a report which I'm not prepared to table because...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, these studies are ongoing, and we will be using them. But with regard to supply, combined exports from these countries — and I'm talking about Poland, the USA, the USSR and China — are forecast to rise.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister can't quote from a document without tabling it.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's get it tabled. That is a valid point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is valid.

MR. MACDONALD: It's valid. He has to table it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I can quote from documents without tabling them. You know full well, Mr. Member, that I can.

All right, I'll quote from a piece of paper then.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister did quote from the.... Would he table the report?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the minister is going to quote from another document at his point in time.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, he's quoted from this one.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Information never hurt anybody!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon.

[ Page 936 ]

minister has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we went through this in the House before. As I say, we're not trying to keep information.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But certainly the information will be tabled and the public of British Columbia will know what's going on before decisions are made.

Mr. Chairman, I quoted from a document the other day. There are certainly sufficient quantities of coking coal in the world to supply all of the demand. But the point is, as I stated in this House before, that other countries are interested in fulfilling this demand. We are competing, and we must compete at world prices or we'll leave the coal in the ground.

The member mentioned other methods of making steel. Certainly there are other methods of making steel, but by the turn of the century they are expected and anticipated to supply about 6 to 9 per cent of the world's supply of steel. We must remember that if we do not move to get into the market and supply it while there is a demand, we may never have the opportunity to fulfil that demand.

With regard to the Coal Task Force, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), volume 1 supplied all the facts and figures; volume 2 was some recommendations with regard to policy.

MR. MACDONALD: Let's see them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The whole area of policy decision on the development of coal is under study at the present time, and we will be making certain recommendations to the Legislature in due course.

MR. GIBSON: I was most impressed with the remarks of the hon. Premier when he intervened in this debate. I was impressed because obviously something has touched a nerve. He asked for an intelligent discussion.

MR. LOEWEN: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: To the hon. member for Burnaby who says "Hear, hear" and whose remarks I shall be looking forward to with great interest: one of the essentials of intelligent discussion is information, and I hope that member who speaks next will bring us all the information he has.

The Premier had the gall to ask for intelligent discussion on the estimates of this minister without giving us the information we need to fully do that. If he really believes in intelligent discussion in this chamber, will he direct the release of the Coal Task Force report and the BCR revenue survey on the Dease Lake line, both the initial one and the ones that must be being done now? There shouldn't be one more penny spent on that line until that extra hundred million that's still to come is justified. Will he direct the release of some of these other reports that the minister has just read off to us now? He went so fast I don't know if I got them all down, but he named documents called "The Study of the Coal Resource," a rail and access study by the transportation subcommittee, an environment study by the Environment and Land Use Committee, a study by the manpower committee, a study by the townsite committee, a general analysis of the overall project — I suppose by the general analysis committee — and then an overall initial determination which has been put to Ottawa by the overall initial determination committee. He mentions a supply study. He mentions a marketing study.

Now we're starting to hear a little bit about where that $3 million has gone, Mr. Chairman. These studies are all available. The Premier has asked for intelligent discussion. You had some pretty intelligent discussion based on the amount of information that's available, I'll tell you.

The Premier talks about hypothetical figures being thrown around. I'd like him to stand up and stake his seat on that. I'd like him to stand up and stake his seat on the basis that coal at present prices with whatever BTU adjustment he wants to make or whatever coking quality adjustment he wants to make for the Peace River is economic on an unsubsidized basis right now. If he's not prepared to do that, which would at least show guts, or else to make the figures public, well then, I don't think we have to pay very much attention to his remarks.

The Premier made an eloquent call for the port of Prince Rupert, and I'm all in favour of that. I'm all in favour of the development of that port for an alternate route to the Pacific for the benefit of British Columbia and Canada. But that's begging the question, Mr. Chairman. That doesn't tell us why we should not have before us in this Legislature the facts on northeast coal and the development of it in this province.

What this government is doing day by day is making commitments. It's making commitments with Ottawa; it's making commitments with Japan and other foreign customers; it's making commitments with companies that are making expenditures on that basis. The hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was perfectly right: BP is not a babe in the woods; they don't throw $30 million around for a northeast coal prospect without having a pretty shrewd idea of just how this government is going to move. Other people have these numbers and commitments are being made, and we can't get these

[ Page 937 ]

figures. So I say we must have touched a nerve somewhere. I think it's about time that we had the facts.

MR. MACDONALD: He's like a squirrel burying nuts.

MR. GIBSON: Who's burying who?

Mr. Chairman, the minister came up with an interesting argument which I am prepared to buy, if he will back it up with facts, and that is that the coking coal market in this world is developing, somebody is going to fill the capacity increment, and that we would prefer that it should be British Columbia. You can justify on a temporarily, let us say, high-cost basis achieving that pre-emptive position, if you can show that over the long run it will be for the good of the province.

I think an argument can be made that that's exactly what British Columbia did in respect to pulp capacity in the late 1960s. I think that case could properly be made there. If it's to be made for coal — and it's a very tricky case to make — then let's have the figures.  You just can't gamble with literally billions of dollars of the public's money in any correct way without telling them exactly what that gamble is.

You know, to get back to just a nice simple little number that all of us can understand a little bit easier than billions, though it's still tough enough, there's the British Columbia Railway and the $100 million yet to be spent on the Dease Lake extension. Mr. Chairman, this government and this minister talk about deficit financing. Here's a load of debt — an additional load of debt — of $100 million that, over the next couple of years, is going to be placed on the people of the province of British Columbia. They're going ahead with the building of that line without having the report of the royal commission, and without knowing whether the revenue that's going to be generated will justify even the extra $100 million that's to be spent now, let alone the total capital cost of $264 million, I think the minister told us about the other day. That $100 million hasn't been spent yet, and I say, Mr. Chairman, there should not be one more penny spent on that Dease Lake extension until the minister justifies to us the revenue forecasts and the traffic that will support that extra money to be spent.

He doesn't have to abandon the project, but maybe that $100 million for the next couple of years can be used in more effective ways to create jobs in British Columbia, like giving the stimulus for another pulp mill; like giving the initial infrastructure for working with that northeast coal; like, for example, a bit of research into undersea mining and ocean engineering which is one of the great potentials for the future of this province. If we are really to expand our mining technology as we sit here on the shores of the Pacific Ocean with all of the necessary companies, large and small, that know how to do that work, from the accumulation of capital to the engineering experience, as we sit near the large accumulations of undersea nodules, as we look at the business of mining, which is what British Columbians are good at, put a few million into that, maybe, instead of putting it into the Dease Lake extension for the next couple of years. That is, unless you've got those revenue forecasts that justify it, and I don't believe they're there.

There's as much debt going to be incurred in the continuation of the Dease Lake extension as that government complained — half as much as they complained about — that they received from the former government when they took over, and they sure haven't made half as much complaint about it. They just seem to be accepting that crushing load of debt that good Social Crediters normally say they don't approve of.

So, Mr. Chairman, my remarks continue basically the same. I wish the minister well. I wish his projects well, but I also say, as a member of this House speaking for some of the people who are paying some of the taxes for all these things, I do not trust any government to do the right thing unless they make everything public. I'm saying that those studies are available. The minister read out the titles of those studies in this House, and unless he can make a case that their release would in some way prejudice the public good of British Columbia, then I say they must be released. I have thought very carefully about whether that might happen with any of these particular reports. I do not believe that, on balance, it would be a problem.

Somehow it seems that private companies can make their feasibility studies public without suffering harm. It seems that other levels of government can make their feasibility studies public without suffering harm. Why can't the province of British Columbia? I'll tell you why: because they want to manage the news. They want to play it close to the vest. They want to hold the information there so that they can make all the decisions without nasty little questions from the members of the opposition saying: "What about this?" and "What about that?" Then finally the day comes along when the decision is made and we're committed with the federal government, we're committed with Japan, we're committed with all of the companies, and the big announcement's made. Then you start to ask questions, and they say: "Well, too late, fellas. It's all signed."

MR. KING: You wouldn't join that group, would you, Gordon? You wouldn't join that gang, would you?

[ Page 938 ]

MR. GIBSON: You aren't suggesting it, are you?

MR. KING: No.

MR. GIBSON: I most certainly wouldn't.

MR. KING: That's good. It's on the public record now.

MS. BROWN: Garde's having enough problems.

MR. COCKE: All you have to do is look at poor old Garde.

MR. GIBSON: So, Mr. Chairman, there it is. We've made some progress with the minister — at least we've got the titles of some of the studies now. How about a bit of the print?

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, when looking at Hansard, will be able to see that he does wish the Minister of Economic Development well, and he wishes the government well.

MR. GIBSON: I wish everybody well. I wish you well, too.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you.

I also would like to make reference to his suggestion that this government should release news, or just rumours of news, as soon as those things appear. I can't help but think back to the time in the past years when the opposition was the leadership. I can't help but think of the chamber of commerce meeting I attended at the Royal Towers in New Westminster.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who was then Minister of Health, at that time made many grand announcements at that chamber of commerce meeting.

I couldn't help but say to my associate who was with me at that particular meeting — and it was a most untimely time of year — that there must be an election coming. I said that I was sure there would be an announcement within the next two or three days. Sure enough, we had our announcement.

I can't help but be humoured today that in the attack on this very worthy minister the opposition was heard to say in the hallway: "We will get him." There were terms like: "We will get him. We will crucify him." There were terms even more harsh than that that I would hate to repeat.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on! Put up or shut up!

MR. LOEWEN: These were statements made by the opposition in the hallway.

MR. COCKE: Name names!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOEWEN: This is simplistic gutter politics.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOEWEN: They smear and innuendo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on! Tell the truth!

MR. LOEWEN: There are several reasons why I became involved in politics in British Columbia. Among others, I came to see whether these gutter politics by the opposition and some of their catchy slogans were, in fact, true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could you relate your remarks to the vote, please? You are out of order.

MR. LOEWEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, certainly.

I am referring to slogans that they use, such as: "Roads or people?" "Fenders or hospitals?" "Taxes or people?" I can't help but think, Mr. Chairman, of their statements about...not like the sweater says in Hawaii: "Do it in the ground!" They say: Keep it in the ground!" The opposition says: "Keep it in the ground!" I can't help but think it's better to mine it, develop it, produce it and put it in the bank, where at least we can generate the interest. As some of us well know, we might call that interest — perpetual care — perpetual care for the people of British Columbia and the development of British Columbia, where the people can live at least off the interest instead of keeping it in the ground where it would cost much more to develop as years go by.

I am also particularly humoured by the objections of the opposition to this particular minister. I am particularly humoured by that member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). He will be surprised again, or at least he will feign surprise, that after the announcement of the development that is going ahead in New Westminster where that member threatened to scuttlebutt that development....

MR. COCKE: Why doesn't he say so?

MR. LOEWEN: That member threatened to scuttlebutt that development in New Westminster.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You must relate your remarks to vote 79 and the minister.

[ Page 939 ]

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, once again I am very proud of this government.

MR. KING: Why?

MR. LOEWEN: I am very proud of this minister, who has initiated one of the greatest community developments ever undertaken in Canada or in our beautiful city of New Westminster. This is an example of great unselfishness, an example of great creativity, of imagination and of true intelligent leadership. He is combining the resources of the community, the resources of business, the resources of the residential community, the resources of the professional community, the resources of private corporations and the resources of government in the interest of the total community, with no cost at all to the taxpayer.

I see the Ministry of Economic Development and the British Columbia Development Corporation not just as a promotion of programmes of idealists politicians and bureaucrats. I see the Department o; Economic Development as a department providing the leadership and the decisions that are combining the ingredients of success. I see the Department of Economic Development and BCDC as the catalysts which are so necessary for investment confidence in this province of British Columbia. They are catalysts not only for investment confidence, but for the confidence of working people to, in fact, come to British Columbia and work and produce in our beautiful province.

The answer to development in British Columbia is not just the grand and large developments which are promoted by governments; the answer is not in the small-business loans, as some academics and bureaucrats suggest from time to time. The reason why different development corporations have been set up across the country.... The answer, apart from the cost of production, which has been canvassed in this House by this time, and the cost of labour....

But we in British Columbia must learn to try harder. We must have the determination to make things happen. I think of two communities that I have lived in, Mr. Chairman, members of this House and the hon. minister. One community had nothing to fall back on, except that they had a community of hard-working people. The other community that I lived in was a one-industry town; it was also a tourist town. This is very similar to the economic base of British Columbia.

When I was in the chamber in both communities we lobbied for one particular industry, as just one example. That particular company's head office was in Minneapolis. The difference why one community got that industry into the community and one community did not was not in the cost of labour. It was only one thing, and that was the determination of the individuals of that community to make it happen and bring that particular industry in.

Just one example among many other things of why that one hard-working, determined community got that industry in was that every time one of the business people went to Minneapolis, which they did frequently, they would knock on the door of the chief executive of that corporation and they'd say: "Come, come, we want you." Then they'd back that up with different incentives. That industry today is employing many jobs in that small rural community of Manitoba.

Determination! We have to get back to true determination in our province of British Columbia if we're going to really see things happening.

I'd also like to make some specific suggestions to the Minister of Economic Development and the government of this province. I agree, first of all, with the member for Vancouver South when last week he commended BCDC in their plan of assembling and developing industrial properties. But I also suggest, secondly, that BCDC could be encouraged not only in a town-centre concept in New Westminster but they could do this in each community or many different communities that need this kind of support where the problems are greater than private enterprise can resolve. BCDC could be the catalyst to make these things happen.

I also believe that BCDC would be the organization that could help define to our government what the real problems are in development in this province. I'm thinking particularly in respect to delays in lead time in construction projects.

I'd also once again like to recommend to the Department of Economic Development that the minister encourage this formation of this private corporation with a broad base of directors that could be the front for people from different companies in British Columbia who would like to trade internationally but just do not have the wherewithal independently to trade, buy or sell with countries internationally. I'm thinking particularly of the countries in the Pacific Rim. I'm thinking particularly of China. Again, this corporation could be formulated very much after the United States-China International Trade Corporation.

One more time I'd like to encourage the principle of merchant banking. We need much more than just our conservative British banking system. We need to encourage the principle of merchant banking. I'd like to read this paragraph from a Winnipeg newspaper. We're now discussing something altogether different.

"The proposal is for a merchant bank which will fill an investment gap between the huge investors such as Canadian Development Corporation and Montreal's Power Corp. and the chartered banks which purely lend money.

[ Page 940 ]

"The real gap in Canada today is down at the middle level. There's a shortage of high-risk capital in areas where there is a need for greater competition to break open a stale or controlled market."

I'd also once more like to mention Bill 44 in Ontario, a bill which passed second reading December 16, 1976. It's a bill that truly combines winners. It combines the determination and experience of management and the determination of capital, and combines them together with ideas and enthusiasm to truly make things happen. Not naive idealism, but people and organizations who are able to make it happen together with youthful enthusiasm. We don't need more plans; we don't need more programmes. We need leadership — determination...

MR. COCKE: What's it doing on the order paper?

MR. LOEWEN: ...unselfish determination and leadership that will make things happen.

MS. BROWN: You're not getting it from him.

MR. LOEWEN: We need the kind of leadership that looks for the best solutions, is prepared to pursue solutions and make these things happen. The problem with the opposition in the past has been that they've been so philosophical and so idealistic that the word "pragmatic" was not in their vocabulary and certainly not in their personalities. Too often these same naive, idealistic people, instead of appreciating the efforts of those people who have made this province what it is, have abused and offended the very organizations, the people and the companies that have made it what it is today.

I believe that if we get back to the old-fashioned principle where the sweat, the blood and the tears of individuals who make things happen are again respected, we can again be the province that we all want this beautiful province to be. Now I believe that we have the type of leadership I'm talking about, with the kind of determination, the character, the people who can make the hard decisions that are necessary and can back them up and not just make promises. We have that kind of minister in our minister today.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we should deal with the minister, but I can't help being a little hurt by the remarks of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen), who says that we said in the hall that we're out to get this minister. Now that's ridiculous, eh?

MR. LOEWEN: That's right.

MR. MACDONALD: That we would get him! This minister carries his own precipice. We don't have to go out and say things like that in the hall. No, no. He's a self-made disaster. He's doing fine.

MR. KING: He's a disaster looking for a place to happen.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to conclude about this Coal Task Force report. You've given us volume one, which is the technical facts, eh? Then the Coal Task Force, led by Prof. W.M. Armstrong and with Sandy Peel, published "recommendations." That was the word you used. And the Legislature is not allowed to debate them or to know what they are, and the people of British Columbia are not allowed to see volume two. It's like reading half of Gone With The Wind and not knowing that Atlanta was on fire. Did I get that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Atlanta. It is arrogance, though, Mr. Chairman. It's arrogance in government of the worst kind when recommendations are published by a task force, that was to go out and bring these recommendations back to the people, and they're suppressed by the minister. Everybody in this House knows that someone like Dr. Norman Keevil, Jr., who's the vice-president of Teck Corp., knows more about those recommendations than we do. Sure he does. You know these people speculating in resource rights in the province know more about it than we do. That's not right, Mr. Minister. If you want to run a proper department and confide in people and allow people to debate the issues, you ought to release this material. To release half of it is not good enough. It's circumscribed the intent of that Coal Task Force when it was set up, which was to bring back things that the people of B.C. could discuss in relation to this most important resource. You're suppressing it and I say that's arrogance in government, Mr. Minister.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): First of all, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to introduce a couple of citizens from Nelson-Creston. It's the first opportunity I think I've had this year. Mr. and Mrs. Jim Payette are in the gallery and I'd like the members here to join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has shown a great deal of arrogance. He was defended by his Premier. His Premier said that he worked long hours, that he worked seven days a week and that he worked 18 hours a day. Well, I wonder what those members of cabinet thought they were running for, Mr. Chairman, if it wasn't to work long, hard hours for the people of British Columbia. You know I'm just getting a little bit sick of hearing them coming up and complaining

[ Page 941 ]

and saying how tough it is and how much their time is imposed upon. That's what it is to be a cabinet minister.

But perhaps that Minister of Economic Development has developed this accident-prone tendency of his because he's overworked, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps that minister needs a good rest — a good vacation — and perhaps the best time that that vacation could take place is while certain matters arising from his office are under investigation. I think it would be well advised. Perhaps it's because that minister's been overworked that he let things slip by him. He was so loose mouthed that not only did people in his office here in Victoria apparently get some information, but people in his constituency association also did.

Now I could only imagine people imagining if my constituency secretary Marie Decaire in Nelson were to get such information, not of a constituency matter, but of a departmental matter. How so much of this could have happened does boggle the imagination.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Rossland-Trail indicated quite ably that there is a general dissatisfaction with the Kootenay report from the Ministry of Economic Development. I would like to bring to the minister's attention that on January 10, 1977, Mayor Salvador presented a copy of the Kootenay report from the ministry and stated his dissatisfaction with the contents at the council meeting. It was then resolved that the Kootenay report for the Ministry of Economic Development be received for information and that a copy be obtained for each alderman.

But I must say that there has been great disappointment with that report. We don't need such along report over such a great length of time to tell us that we do have some difficulties in the Kootenay area. What we would have liked would have been to see some positive recommendations and time frames set up for some positive action.

The other day I referred to the Atco plant in Penticton and to the fact that the Atco plant in Penticton was actually tooling up to build 14-foot-wide trailers long before the change took place by order-in-council through the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis). I'll quote from the news release of April 26, 1976, from the Department of Economic Development. It was announced:

"Atco Industries will establish an 89,000-square-foot mobile-modular-home plant in Penticton, British Columbia."

Good — very good stuff.

"The announcement was made today by Don Phillips, Minister of Economic Development and chairman of the British Columbia Development Corporation and by Mr. D.A. Bullock, vice-president, mobile home operations, of the division of Atco.

"Atco has entered into a 15-year lease-purchase agreement with the British Columbia Development Corporation for the $2.5-million plant."

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister an old question and a new question. First of all, did the minister give an assurance to Atco prior to this announcement that they would be bringing in changes in legislation in order to enable the building of 14- or 14-1/2-foot-wide mobile homes and their transport on the highways of British Columbia?

No. 2: is the minister willing to table this agreement with the members of this House?

A lot has been said today — and I think that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has made some points which certainly bear answering about the northeast coal agreement. The government has said they have an economic strategy. But it's a strategy, Mr. Chairman, they seem to be unwilling to share with members of this House, refusing to table documents and breaking the rules, I might say, of this House by quoting from documents and then pulling them back and then pulling out a slip of paper. It is a rule of this House that when quoting from documents, they should be tabled.

We hear from them that they have an economic strategy. They seem to be embarrassed to share it with members of this House. Perhaps it's full of holes. We do see some unfolding of this and we see the news manipulation referred to by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. We see this announcement in The Daily Colonist following the Premier's trip back cast. It says: "Bennett Sees Federal Pact Signed by April 1." Then it refers to a five-year DREE agreement, an ARDA agreement and to some highways building.

Surrounding this northeast coal development study, there seems to be an awful lot of farming out of work. Not all of this work is being done by department staff, nor is it being done by corporation staff. I would like to know just how many consulting jobs he has farmed out surrounding the northeast coal development studies, and at what cost. Clearly they are doing all of these things; they're in the process. But there isn't really much happening in terms of jobs being created in the area. The needs and the unemployment situation are very serious.

According to information from the Department of Manpower, in 1976 — I believe the January figures are given for 1976 — 6 per cent were unemployed. For this year in the northeast area, in regions 98 and 99, Canada Manpower gets it up to 11.9 per cent, clearly double what it was a year ago — double because of a lack of action, because of a lot of intemperate actions being taken.

There are a lot of studies taking place and some

[ Page 942 ]

people are being hired, consultants are being hired; there is lots of work for consultants. But these consultants mostly come from places like Vancouver, and maybe Calgary and Edmonton. I would like to know what information the minister intends to get through his contract with, I think, Suzanne Veit and Associates — a study of employment of women in mining — and whether this is to play a great role in terms of the employment strategy in the northeast coal agreement.

You know, it appears that what we have are bureaucrats stumbling over bureaucrats. There are so many of them, Mr. Chairman, that even up there in the great wide open spaces of the Peace River they need traffic cops to keep these bureaucrats from stumbling over each other. That, of course, is maybe another sign of employment, but it has resulted in a doubling of unemployment in that minister's area.

They are collecting things called "progress reviews." There is one man assigned to collect progress reviews from all the other bureaucrats. There is still another who will work to update the timing chart. I guess they had high expectations of getting things underway very soon. Now they're having to set back those times, keep the timing chart up to date and keep moving back the deadlines, so there is another bureaucrat just going around doing that.

Another one is examining and amending, whenever necessary, the project activity chart. They have a project activity chart. I think people want to know what the purpose of the project activity chart is. What is the timing chart? What are the progress reviews? Are we getting ahead or are we falling further behind? Are we going to see another doubling of unemployment in the minister's area? Is it going to go up by another 6 per cent, maybe, in the next year, and another 6 per cent, so that it's up to over 20 per cent?

Mr. Chairman, the people of this province need action now. I know of a small fiberglass plant in my riding that needs a little bit of capitalization. It could be employing people tomorrow, but they are not interested. They're not interested in real free enterprise. No, they want to just help these big foreign mining corporations who seem to have so much money but that's all. I'm not criticizing them for wanting to get things going in terms of coal mining, but they shouldn't forget that the small employers are also important. That's where the real free enterprise is.

Mr. Chairman, it appears they have piled subcommittee on subcommittee. They have a manpower subcommittee; they have a townsite community subcommittee; they have a liaison committee with DREE; they have an inter-departmental committee for pilot training. What are these committees doing? Are they getting anywhere? Are they getting further behind? Are they getting ahead? What is the man in charge of update timing doing? What is the person assigned to the project activity chart...? What do his charts look like? Where are we getting.

They have an estimate of new jobs in the northwest with respect to coal development. Mr. Chairman, going back to 1976, it was estimated that there would be 85 jobs at Utah Mines for 1977. There are supposed to be 475 employed in Denison, 300 at Sukunka and then 85 at Utah. They have projections for 1978-79 and, I guess, 1980. What are these projections? What can we hold out for, Mr. Chairman?

You know, the minister is supposedly so overworked that perhaps he should get himself a little bit organized. Perhaps he should cut out some of the overlapping bureaucracy, cut out all this PR mumbo-jumbo and get on with the real job. You know, opportunities are passing this minister by like a freight train going by with a bunch of grain cars on the Prairies. They are just going by one after one. Of course, grain cars are, I guess, perhaps one good place to start.

You know, Ottawa turned down a request from Railwest Manufacturing Company's rolling-stock subsidiary in Squamish for an extension of the deadline for the submission of bids to build 2,000 federal government grain cars, according to a recent announcement. The Railwest general manager, Mr. Bingham, met that week with representatives of the Departments of Transport and Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa and was unsuccessful in getting the deadline set beyond January 17. Railwest had only received an invitation to bid on January 5.

Mr. Chairman, what action did that minister take? What outcry came and what leadership came from the Premier who says that he has such a wonderful relationship and such wonderful rapport with the officials in Ottawa? Is the minister trying to cultivate another Bricklin? Is he out to destabilize the Railwest plant? Is this part of a scheme, as it may be part of other deals with the CNR, in negotiations that are reported to be taking place with the CNR? How could such a travesty be perpetrated on the people of British Columbia and the minister and the Premier remain so supine to these arrogant, off-hand actions of the federal government and their Crown corporations? Mr. Chairman, this is a do-nothing minister, and if it takes him seven days a week, 18 hours a day to do nothing, that's all he's done for the people of British Columbia — nothing!

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Settle down over there.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, the Premier, he got up and he spoke so eloquently in defence of that minister. That minister also got up and demanded an apology

[ Page 943 ]

when it was exposed to this House that a member of the B.C. Development Corporation was doing work and pursuing his duties on behalf of Finning Tractor, the president of which is Mr. Morris Young, a director of the B.C. Development Corporation. The minister shakes his head. He doesn't seem to understand, but it's apparent that the B.C. Development Corporation is another corporation where they don't appear to have an ethics committee, where they don't appear to have a conflict-of-interest subcommittee of the board of directors in order to discuss and to clear such matters before such embarrassments occur. These things, Mr. Chairman, should be discussed, and if there was an ethics committee, and if the ethics committee discussed this because of Mr. Young's involvement with the two corporations, and if it was found and ruled upon to be proper, then it would be proper. But there is no ethics committee. It appears there is no conflict-of-interest committee. It is an unethical board of directors as it stands, and that should be cleaned up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're casting aspersions upon public servants, that would require a substantive motion. I am sure you are aware of that.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I'm not talking about a public servant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unethical board of directors?

MR. NICOLSON: I am not talking about anyone who is serving as a public servant, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if the Crown corporations don't have a conflict-of-interest committee or an ethics committee at the board of directors level in order to discuss some of these things...because when you bring in people of expertise from the business community you're bringing in people who might sit on several other boards of directors. This is what is done with banks and insurance companies that have people on the same board of directors. I am saying that this is a policy that should be adopted. It should particularly be adopted by any Crown corporation on which that minister sits. That is all I am saying.

Well, the minister, of course, got up and he demanded an apology for remarks made — for bringing up this deficiency, this weakness in the system, which has been adopted by the present board of directors of the B.C. Development Corporation. He demanded an apology. That minister has not as yet, to my knowledge, apologized for remarks that he made as a member of the opposition concerning four members of the Dunhill Development Corporation who, he said, were guilty of insider trading. He said he had a prima facie case and cast aspersions on these people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell us about Casa Loma.

MR. NICOLSON: Now it has become a matter of record that Mr. Bannerman and CKNW paid $1,000 to each of those offended parties and they gave an unreserved apology, but there has been no unreserved apology from that minister. How can that minister sit there and expect the members of the opposition to apologize? What gall! What contempt! What arrogance! What hypocrisy for a minister of that calibre to make such demands!

Mr. Chairman, there's a great deal that still concerns the members, I would venture to say, of all three opposition parties — questions unanswered, documents untabled. What is the economic strategy of the minister for this province? What is the economic strategy for the northwest coal agreement? Are we on schedule? Are there going to be 475 jobs at Denison this year in that area? Is Sukunka going to provide 300 jobs this year? Are there going to be 85 jobs from Utah? Are you going to see the unemployment in your area maybe drop back to 6 per cent from 12 per cent, Mr. Minister?

It would appear that when we were looking into this ourselves prior to the election, we were expecting some 2,000 jobs to be created. But with the paper chase that's going on with this minister, I think maybe we were being a little bit too optimistic. It is going to be some time, Mr. Chairman, before this thing will ever get off the ground — if ever.

We have some very serious charges made by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano which haven't been refuted. Just rhetoric, just talk. "Trust us. Don't attack my little minister. He's the walking sieve of information. Don't attack him. Such a nice little guy. 11

We're not out to get him; we're just out to get some of the facts. We want to get some of the facts about this government's plans for the economy of British Columbia. There are 112,000 persons unemployed. And they can get up and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) can come up with the trumped-up statistics of the Department of Manpower and seasonally adjusted rates, and compare and compare. But the fact is there's never been 112,000 persons unemployed as there are today. In the Nelson area there are 2,200 persons unemployed out of a labour force of 12,000. That's 18.3 per cent, and those are just the people out of a 12,000-person labour force. And the minister sits there and smiles, and he has nothing to say. He won't table their strategy. But what is the strategy to get B.C. moving again? Did the minister give a commitment to Atco in terms of allowing and bringing in legislation?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to sit down very soon, but I am sure that the minister will be

[ Page 944 ]

rising to answer some of these questions. Just get up and give a little bit of an apology. I know it'll hurt, but show the big man that you are. Apologize for what you said a few years ago — not to me, not to any of the members on this side of the House, but to those public servants that you slandered.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate that member's concern about the economy of British Columbia. With regard to the Kootenay report, those reports were commissioned by the previous Minister of Economic Development, paid for partly by the province and partly by the federal government. They are really meant to be an inventory of opportunities.

If the people in your riding are unhappy with the report — they are meant to be discussion papers — certainly we would be most happy to sit down with them and to discuss. If they have suggestions as to projects or other natural resources in the area that are left out, if they have suggestions as to how we can help them implement or bring about some of the opportunities in the area and bring them into reality, we'll be most happy to do that.

With regard to the 14-foot-wide trailers, on September 21 the Department of Transport and Communications made an announcement. I believe that was six months in advance prior to the rules and regulations being published. They invited submissions from the industry, from trailer owners and from any other interested parties with regard to the movement of 14-foot-wide trailers on our highways. I think that's been a good move, and I think the member will agree it's been a good move. We are giving British Columbians the opportunity to avail themselves of living in 14-foot-wide trailers the same as they have in other provinces of Canada. That member for Nelson-Creston, who was a Minister of Housing, realizes that 14-foot-wide trailers are providing good accommodation for many, many households in British Columbia. I think it's a good move to give British Columbians access to the 14-foot-wide trailers.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to welcome the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) back into the House to offer some of his comments. We all know that he'll be the last one to let you down. (Laughter.)

I'm rather amazed that that member should be absent for the greatest part of this debate over the last several days and then come into the House and lecture to the rest of us as to what is wrong with this debate and what is wrong with the attempts by the opposition to get to the facts and the figures of our economic situation.

I was also interested, Mr. Chairman, to see today for the first time who the new minister of defence is in this government. The last government also had a minister of defence, and it seems that that is a position which develops almost by accident rather than design. We heard the Premier standing up this afternoon to assume the role of minister of defence as well as Premier. He was trying to protect the Minister of Economic Development who, by this time, I think, is beginning to show some insight as to the reason we're all here. The reason we're all here is to discuss his responsibilities and to ask questions about them in the hope that we'll get answers. It's only in the last day and a half that it appears that the Minister of Economic Development has got the message as to why we're all here.

I think the Premier's defensive rush was a sort of hit-and-run affair, really, Mr. Chairman. He made a spirited defence of his minister and then took off like a scared rabbit. It would seem to me that that is hardly the kind of example we would expect from either the Premier or any other minister who professes to be very concerned about what's happening in the province and says that this debate should be on a high level.

He made some remarks as to how he had read Hansard on returning from Ottawa, and that it was fortunate he wasn't here last week. He says...when most of what passes for debate from the opposition was spouted forth in this House. But judging from reading Hansard, I missed nothing more than the usual series of insults, half-truths and nothing constructive from the opposition. He seems to share some of the attitudes of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who feels that he can be missing from the chamber for three or four days, albeit on a very important mission to Ottawa, and then come back and suggest that the opposition isn't trying to present some useful, reasonable and constructive ideas, not only so that the opposition can be better informed but so that the people in the province can understand what the economic future is.

In his comments, the Premier blamed the former government in the period from 1972 to 1975 for ongoing unemployment. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think that's rather a grandiose accusation when the figures and facts show that unemployment was not created in 1972. Furthermore, this same Premier is on record many times as talking about the close relationship between unemployment and inflation. Ever since he became Premier he has quite rightly talked about the terrible problem of inflation which puts up costs and creates unemployment if allowed to go unchecked. This is why this government, in my view, quite correctly signed an agreement with Ottawa to support anti-inflation measures. For the Premier to come in this afternoon and give us his smart-alec remarks — "Oh, dear me, it was the NDP who created all the unemployment between 1972 and 1975" — is just a bit much.

I'm not just quoting the opinion of opposition members in this House but anyone who reads the

[ Page 945 ]

comments by some of our economists. It makes it very plain that the modern challenge to all governments is to try and walk this tightrope between inflation and unemployment. If you inject money into the economy to create jobs or lower interest rates, or take some of the other measures which governments — particularly federal governments — are being asked to take, there is always this danger that, sure, you can create jobs, but that all you do is perhaps start off another round of inflation. So for the Premier to come in this afternoon and give us this simplistic appraisal of how this government is solving all the economic problems of B.C. when, in point of fact, unemployment hasn't changed one whit, except to get a little worse since this government took office....

AN HON. MEMBER: Way worse!

MR. WALLACE: Then for the Premier to go on and tell us about the Napoleon in the government, the one man who is the master who will design the economic strategy for British Columbia.... Who does he really think he's trying to fool?

We've heard from some observers that this minister is the power behind the throne. I would think he's a long way behind the throne at the present time, based on his performance. I would suggest that if his judgment in matters of economic development are similar to his judgment regarding the people he chooses for high office, his own attitude to ethics, and what creates or does not create a conflict of interest, then I would have to conclude that it is no small wonder that the economy of British Columbia right now is standing still.

The Premier also referred to the need for federal-provincial cooperation. That is undisputed. As I mentioned earlier, this government or any other government should always be given the utmost support in building the strongest kind of understanding between British Columbia and the federal government. But on the other hand, one has to ask the question.... We're agreed that we should have improved rail links in British Columbia. We're agreed that there should be port development to make it possible to export raw materials from the Prairies and from this province and earn dollars outside of Canada. We're all agreed on that. But all I can determine is that we're always being told that that's going to happen somewhere in the future. That's really pretty cold comfort to the 112,000 people who are unemployed.

I noticed The Globe and Mail on February 9 had a very sobering headline which said: "40 Per Cent of Record Jobless Total Are Family Heads." There again, I think that figure relates to the fact I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman — families are leaving British Columbia. There was an outflow of several hundred families in 1976.

So I just think it's reasonable for the opposition to make the point that we're hearing of all kinds of plans and all kinds of studies and all kinds of promises as to what will happen if we just have patience. The people in the province who are unemployed would like to see something a little closer at hand and a little more reassuring than these ongoing promises of what this government will ultimately do to create jobs.

We've heard enough in this debate in several days that we're certain the province is being studied and restudied. It reminds me so much of all the studies we've had in the greater Victoria area to do with hospital facilities for the last 9 or 10 years. We're virtually studied to death.

Perhaps more important even than that point is the fact that this minister has clearly demonstrated that it is a policy of this government to worship secrecy. There's an obvious aim by this minister and by the Premier to provide little or none of the basic information on which the opposition could evaluate economic development in the province or the absence of it. If there was ever any need to demonstrate that we should have greater freedom of information, it would certainly be in this debate when, for the first several days, the minister just refused to give any kind of answer to questions.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

On a more specific note, Mr. Chairman, and to ask the minister one or two further questions: the annual report covering the activity of the ministry up until March 31, 1976, has become available. I would just like to ask, how is it that the annual report outlines the activities of four or five very important branches of the minister's ministry — such as business and industrial development, research and analysis branch, policy planning branch, women's economic rights branch — but in the actual book of estimates there is no breakdown on the different financial activities of these particular branches? In fact, the minister's estimates are summed up in only five separate votes. Two of these votes relate to building-occupancy charges, and another one to computer and consulting charges.

The sum total information in votes in our estimates book, Mr. Chairman, consists simply of "the minister's office," "general administration" and "grants." Yet the annual report of the ministry spells out the kind of activity that's going on in a variety of areas. I just wonder how we can be expected, once we leave the minister's vote, to debate intelligently the other activities in many of the branches within the ministry. Again, it would suggest that the estimates have been drawn up in such a way as to make it difficult for us, as opposition members, to get the

[ Page 946 ]

information we want.

For example, under the trade and industry division in the annual report, I found a very interesting statement to the effect that, in general terms, for every $35,000 in additional sales we create one new job. Now I thought that one of the points that had been made repeatedly was that depending on which kind of industry we're involved in and which kind of product and what the overhead costs are and 100 other things, from these factors flowed the number of jobs that might or might not be created. So maybe the minister can tell me later on how you reach this figure that $35,000 worth of new sales creates a new job.

There's also a small-business assistance division. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date with the latest information about Oakland Industries. We know that more than one member of the House, particularly the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), has already raised this issue. I would think that it would be timely; the minister has had another couple of days to pursue that issue further. We would like to know whether Oakland Industries will survive through assistance from B.C. Development Corporation.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) raised the issue of a handicapped man who was creating employment in Lake Cowichan. I have no wish to intrude into matters in her riding, but that particular gentleman has been corresponding with me off and on for some time. He has a small plant which manufactures cedar work baskets and garden equipment.

To read the recital of the various people that he's seen at different times within the ministry is really quite distressing. I presume that each and every member of the minister's staff who has dealt with Mr. Christian has done so in good faith and has attempted to help him. The sad fact of the matter is that the man is totally confused as to what help might be available, and has, I understand, closed down his business simply because he can't raise the loan, which is something in the order, I think, of $35,000. At his most recent meeting with one of the minister's officials he was just simply told that he had financed his operation in the wrong manner and was given a book to read as to how he could correct it.

Now the problem is that Mr. Christian is almost totally blind and has a hearing disability. He has created jobs for other people with disabilities. Here is exactly an example of a very independently minded and spirited man who is not only very eager to remain off the welfare roles himself but building a small business which can employ other handicapped persons. He's really having the most difficult time getting solid advice and guidance from, let us say, the small-business assistance division of the minister's department.

I would hope that in the same manner as Oakland Industries is still receiving the minister's attention, the small business that Mr. Christian is trying to sustain in Lake Cowichan will receive the minister's urgent attention. Just on the telephone the other day Mr. Christian told me he was throwing in the sponge; he'd had enough. He just seemed to be going round in circles meeting this official and that official, getting conflicting information, but in the end no real, effective financial support to keep the business afloat.

One of the other aspects of the annual report which I find very interesting was under the heading of the economic analysis division. I wonder if the minister could explain the studies that are going on in relation to Cuba. I'll just quote it. It states under the economic analysis division that "several studies of foreign-market potential were undertaken, including studies of Alaska and Cuba."

MR. GIBSON: He's checking out their economic system.

MR. WALLACE: That's an interesting ingredient in the annual report. I was not aware that British Columbia was taking a close interest in the economy of Cuba. I understand they have a different system from what we have in British Columbia. I was just wondering in what way our manufacturing industry or our economic base is planning to benefit from Cuba. I'd be delighted to hear from the minister.

Another part of the annual report which I think is just worth a quick question is the statement made — I don't know if it's significant — on almost the very last page of the report. It deals with the women's economic rights branch. If the order in which the matters are listed is any order of the significance attached to them by the minister, then I guess the women are at the bottom of the heap again.

But on the other hand, I will try to be fair and say that the title begins with the letter "W." And since my name begins with "W," I've got great experience in being at the bottom of the heap when it comes to arranging things in order.

Right at the end of the report, Mr. Chairman, there is a statement: "Within the department the branch developed and is monitoring an affirmative action plan to ensure that hiring and promotion within the department provides equal opportunity to both women and men." Now I wonder if there is a document. Is this plan available for scrutiny by members of the opposition?

I'm delighted to see the minister's deputy nodding his head. We're getting more help from the deputy than we're getting from the minister today. Perhaps we should ask leave of the House to let the deputy answer the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 947 ]

MR. WALLACE: But certainly there is a tremendous need to develop an affirmative action plan, not only in government but throughout the whole employment sector in British Columbia. The more we learned of some of the economic problems encountered by women in our supposedly enlightened society, the more I think the leadership has to come from government in the first place as being the largest employer in British Columbia. I was really pleased that this mention was made in the annual report, and I would be grateful if the minister could give us some more details.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there were just two or three questions I asked earlier which have not been answered. I would like to know some of the details regarding the Squamish boxcar plant which the minister promised to answer on Friday, I believe. I would also like to go back to the Ragan Construction settlement. I would like to know what figure the two appraisers came up with in regard to the value of the equipment which was purchased by BCR. I understand there was an outside appraiser. I would like to know, first of all, if that appraiser was Finning Ltd., because we would like to know the reason that particular appraiser was chosen, and I would like the two figures — the Finning figure and the figure from BCR itself. I understood the minister to say that BCR also made an appraisal.

The last point I want to ask for the second time is the proposal that the B.C. Development Corporation might provide an initial injection of capital to provide some insurance and some lending capital for the tourist industry.

MR. LOEWEN: Good idea.

MR. WALLACE: Now I know I'm in trouble. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds says he's in favour of it.

But, Mr. Chairman, I put this forward as a very serious proposal. It is not an idea that just seems attractive superficially. There are examples in other areas of our economy, particularly agriculture, which are subject to the vagaries of nature and the up-and-down cycles of weather and many other factors which governments cannot control.

Tourism, quite rightly, is being recognized as a very clean, generally non-polluting industry. It's labour intensive and provides a tremendous inflow of dollars from persons who do not place the same kind of demand on the economy in relation, let us say, to hospitals and schools, that the resident population does, In other words, British Columbia, by being blessed with the natural beauty of the countryside and the lakes and the mountains and all the other attractive natural assets, should surely realize that stability in the tourist industry, as much as any other factor in the tourist industry, should be encouraged and developed by the government.

I want to make it abundantly plain that I'm not suggesting the government should give handouts or subsidies to the tourist industry. I'm just repeating the suggestion that an initial injection of capital could provide, first of all, an insurance programme, let's say, for those involved in the skiing industry whereby they could, on a purely voluntary basis, pay money into an insurance programme in the good years so that the industry would not go broke in the bad years. The principle has been well established in the area of agriculture in the form of crop insurance, and I see many similarities.

Similarly, in relation to a great stability of financing, if the B.C. Development Corporation would provide capital which would make it possible for operators in the tourist industry to obtain loans at prime interest rate and spread them over a longer number of years than the present system provides, there would be fewer hardships resulting from the kind of tourist season we had last summer and the serious winter situation we have this year in relation to the very light snowfall.

Now I read this morning a comment from the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who unfortunately isn't in the House at the moment. But she just gave a flat no to this suggestion of mine simply because it would require capital. I got the impression that her response appeared to be based on her thought that the government would be spending money to prop up the tourist industry, and that is not the case, Mr. Chairman.

The idea is that the financial plan for the insurance and the lending would be self-sustaining. It would be on a sound actuarial basis; it would be voluntary. If people in the industry did not wish to participate, that would be their choice. On the other hand, those who would wish to participate could have the assurance of two things: they could contribute when the industry was thriving; and they could depend on some assistance in the years when there was either bad weather or other factors contributing to a slump in the industry.

We all, perhaps, tend at times to fall into the error of suggesting that government should always bail everybody out when there are financial problems. I'm opposed to stop-gap handouts. In this particular instance, I think the government, through the B.C. Development Corporation, may well feel that it has to do something to try and help the ski-resort industry. That's debatable.

But the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that this year's experience demonstrates the uncertainty and the instability of a very vital ingredient in the tourist industry over which you and I can have no control. The very crucial aspect of weather is a determining factor as to whether the industry thrives or not. I wonder if the minister

[ Page 948 ]

would make some response as to whether he feels that at least in principle, even if it cannot be initiated this year, this kind of thinking, which was first started many years ago in relation to crops, is surely equally important to our tourist industry which, as the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) said yesterday, is close to being a billion dollar industry. It could double its income in five years and is, indeed, one of the three top earners in our economy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer the member's questions.

You brought up some very important aspects of the tourist industry. Probably the reason that we're not equipped to handle it is that this is one of the first years we've had such a disaster in the industry. Skiing, as you know, has had relatively good times in the last 10 or 15 years. As a matter of fact, it's been a growth industry. We're faced with a situation where we have to do a very thorough analysis of it. How do we help them? We're doing that at the present time.

One of the reasons Finning did the appraisal on equipment is that they keep a running record of every piece of equipment in the province. They had all the records and it was quite easy for them to give a better appraisal than to have an independent person go out there. Actually, I suppose if you want to look at it realistically, equipment like that is worth only what it will bring in an auction sale. Some of the other equipment such as camps and so forth was assessed by the personnel of the railroad only, and there was no outside appraisal on it. There again, the camp was situated on the line and that had to be taken into consideration.

MR. WALLACE: What was the total?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The total on the equipment was $615,000 with a market value of $645,500.

I can't recall your question on the Squamish boxcar plant. If you can give it to me in detail, I'd be quite happy to provide you....

MR. WALLACE: They're all on the order paper.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll go over it and get them.

There's a lot of talk about women's rights, Mr. Member. We have in the department our women's rights branch. They are constantly involved in doing studies. They've been involved in the study on the northeast.

With regard to the breakdown of votes, that question would more properly be asked under vote 80. We'll give you the breakdown at that time.

I haven't had a report today on Oakland Industries. I'll have to get it for you, as I know the thing is set where certain negotiations are going on. I don't follow them on a daily basis because I've done all that I can do at the present time. Until certain other actions take place, there's really nothing I can do. The next thing to happen is for the Federal Business Development Bank to make a move. Until they make a move there is not much we can do.

MR. COCKE: We can keep your end of it going till then.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In regard to Mr. Christian, I'm endeavouring to find out who he talked to in the department and what additional assistance we can give to him. I'd like to check that out.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Chairman, we've listened to rather wide-ranging opposition arguments on vote 79. In fact, they ranged all the way from China to Alaska, Japan and Siberia.

MR. WALLACE: What about Cuba?

MR. KERSTER: Did somebody forget to mention Cuba?

At the risk of being relevant, I'd like to stop briefly in British Columbia and discuss some information pertaining to the vote that's presently before this committee.

Now from the start I want to emphasize that it's not my intention to indulge in lavish, encomiastic exercises about the behaviour of the opposition in this House. But I do want to note as commendable the consummate skill with which they slow to a crawl the legislative process for which we are all here.

In their attempts to discredit the hon. Minister of Economic Development, the socialists have massaged to death their deep concerns about unemployment statistics and the B.C. Railway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Author!

MR. KERSTER: Do some research, Mr. Member. Buy a dictionary. You'll understand some of those words someday.

Now in the MEL Paving issue, the NDP cried foul and demanded a judicial inquiry. This government acted rapidly, responsibly; a judicial inquiry was ordered. This government has called for that judicial inquiry into the overall operations of the B.C. Railway, and, as the hon. Attorney-General put it, that includes "the whole bag." But they don't seem to understand that regardless of who might be embarrassed, the true facts will obviously come out. And, Mr. Chairman, I'll bet you that there'll be some red faces in that NDP opposition when the full facts

[ Page 949 ]

do come out.

I'd like to point out one or two items they very conveniently forgot or neglected to mention, or their researchers haven't been able to locate, and these are recorded public statistics, very relative to the opposition allegations that the Minister of Economic Development has not done his job to restore investor faith and encourage investment to create jobs in this province,

Mr. Chairman, let's compare some of the Canada labour force and unemployment figures for the years 1975 and 1976. It was them in 1975 and it is us in 1976. It is interesting to note in 1975 that 51,000 additional people entered the B.C. labour force and there was only a growth of employment of 22,000. That left 29,000 people unemployed — more unemployed in this system in British Columbia. In 1975 that's 51,000 more looking, 22,000 more working, equals 29,000 increase in unemployment.

Now in 1976, the same Statistics Canada information: 32,000 additional people entered the labour force, and the same statistics show an increase in employment of 29,000. Okay, that's 32,000 more looking, 29,000 more working, 3,000 more unemployed. Those are Statistics Canada figures, Mr. Member. Surely the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano wouldn't take exception to Stats Canada.

The people of this province can judge which government and which Economic Development minister most successfully has attacked that problem.

I would emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that to find those figures clearly and truthfully stated by Stats Canada doesn't take a law degree or a computer. All they had to do is turn to the right page and read them as they are, not as they want the people of this province to think they are.

Now the former Minister of Economic Development has gleefully romped all around the MEL Paving issue with all the competency of an Inspector Clouseau, or should I say a Pink Panther. I should say a bewildered Pink Panther. Mr. Chairman, the MEL Paving issue has been repetitiously canvassed in this assembly, so much in fact that our standing rule 43 may self-destruct. But, again, I think we should examine one or two items the official opposition has conveniently omitted to talk about.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the former government chose to renegotiate two very substantial contracts on the BCR's Dease Lake extension, and, at the same time, refused to negotiate the MEL Paving contract. I'm only asking this question because it's one, I'm sure, a lot of people of this province would like answered.

I refer specifically to Keen Industries. The former Minister of Economic Development, as he was called, and the former Premier, prior to December 10, 1975, made a settlement to Keen and KRM of $1,737,000 for operational claims due to alleged engineering discrepancies. Then they paid another $1,146, 299 to those two companies, and that latter sum was composed of five separate settlements. They were in the amounts of $757,499; $133,644; $42,034; $150,124; and $63,048 — for holdbacks, et cetera. Five separate settlements with those contractors. The total before December 10, 1975, now comes to $2,883,000 in settlements or renegotiations.

Here's another interesting fact, Mr. Chairman. On December 10, 1975, one day before their government was defeated at the polls, the NDP renegotiated ongoing contract unit prices with both Keen and KRM, as follows: a 56 per cent general increase on all unit prices except solid rock on the Dease Lake extension — that's the gravel, the mud, the brush clearing, et cetera; a 62.8 per cent increase in solid rock unit prices. Now these new unit prices added approximately $7 million to those contracts, for work to be performed after December 10, 1975, to the completion of those contracts. That's approximately $9.8 million in additional commitments to be honoured by B.C. Rail through renegotiations or settlements with two contractors.

Why did they then refuse to renegotiate with MEL Paving? They had the opportunity when they were in power to continue construction on that Dease Lake extension and to prevent the MEL lawsuit and the resulting settlement which they claim has set a dangerous precedent. Well, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the precedent had been set by that former government with the Keen and the KRM settlements and renegotiations. The result was, in fact, the MEL case.

Mr. Chairman, those opposite have been demanding ministerial responsibility in their remarks in this debate on vote 79 and I suggest that most of those former ministers wouldn't recognize it having been so obviously irresponsible in government. Was that former Minister of Economic Development responsible? Well, I suppose, if you look at it in a negative sense, he was. He was responsible for driving businessmen and industry out of this province. He was responsible for creating the instability which contributed very much to the unemployment and the economic ills that we're suffering from today. Those things they all choose to blame the current Minister of Economic Development for. Boy, what twisting! Our government, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Economic Development promised recovery through sound management and restraint, and responsible actions by all segments of society — labour, government and management. But, Mr. Chairman, there's a difference between a promise that represents a genuine, supportable prediction and a spurious, socialist promise that engenders hope and trust, but is plucked from the bottom of Pandora's box. That box, as you know, contained all human ills. I believe

[ Page 950 ]

many of them were entangled in socialist philosophies: faith in the free lunch and total ignorance of economics, to name just two.

Surely only economic inexperience and nescience can explain that official opposition's past behaviour and their present reluctance to cooperate with the hon. Minister of Economic Development's efforts to correct the economic excesses of those unfortunate years. It was the blatant economic recusancy of that present opposition when they were in power that caused the world investment community to show a lack of faith in British Columbia in the first place. This government and this Minister of Economic Development have the task of restoring that confidence and we're doing just that.

Mr. Chairman, this past week's opposition debate has been nothing but a vengeful, vindictive attack on the Minister of Economic Development and this government, and is totally ridiculous because of its hypocrisy. Mr. Chairman, the muck-raking and the innuendoes of that NDP opposition will never bring this government or that hon. Minister of Economic Development down to their level.

MR. BARBER: It's very helpful and I appreciate the cue that we should be getting back to the case of the B.C. Rail and the MEL Paving suit because in the last few days I've uncovered some information which substantiates some fairly serious charges that have been made against this minister. I will be releasing that information shortly. I have been on the phone and reading documents, and I have come into possession of a body of facts that I think will confirm, in the minds of this opposition at least, that that minister is simply not competent to hold the position he does.

To reply to the endless questions and hopeless defence by the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) as to why the Keen and KRM settlements were arrived at by our government and why a MEL settlement was not arrived at by our government, it is simply this. I am informed by my colleagues that neither KRM nor Keen alleged civil fraud at any time — never. Our government was of the position that no charge of fraud should be settled out of court. Our government was of the position that we had no intention of getting into yours by doing so, and by doing so on Christmas eve, for that matter. I'll get back to that in a moment.

I want to raise again, if I may, the question of Oakland Industries. I appreciate the fact that the minister has informed us that the next procedure appears to be up to the federal government. He has yet to inform us what the provincial government's position is. He has yet to tell us his own concern about Oakland Industries, save to tell us that he is concerned. He has not told us what the provincial government intends, expects or is willing to do. He has not told us what their side of the negotiation represents. He has only told us that it's up to someone else. It is not adequate to the 300 people in my riding who are waiting to find out whether or not they have a job to be told that negotiations are in process and we're waiting for the feds to tell us what's happening next. We want to know what the minister's position is, Mr. Chairman. He's never told us that at all. He simply wrung his hands and expressed concern. That's really not adequate.

Back to the B.C. Rail. It's been pointed out a number of times that this minister is barely in charge of his own department. It has been pointed out that it is not being run by him at all, but is being run by a succession of judges, commissioners and the RCMP. This minister is faced with a number of problems. This minister has managed to add to most of those problems during his brief tenure. This minister has added to those problems by making what is now clear to be a clumsy and crude and unsuccessful attempt to get rid of Mr. Mac Norris on not one but two occasions, and that is the subject of the material which I will release in a moment.

The minister is faced with the fact that he's presiding over the worst operating loss in the history of the B.C. Rail. Some $69  million, we are informed, by his own estimate, is the likely loss at the end of B.C. Rail's fiscal year.

The minister is a member of a cabinet where the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) talks to the Vancouver Sun and tells them that they are looking to sell the entire B.C. Rail. He is a member of a cabinet where obviously dispute and dissension reigns.

The minister himself, as I will later point out — I stand to be corrected but do not expect to be — has been in constant dispute with the Premier since the summer of this year regarding the actual operations of the railway and the evident attempt to make very substantial personnel changes without informing the senior personnel management of that railway. He has been at war with the Premier. He won a few and he lost a few. He has obviously lost the major confidence that we once understood the Premier had in him. He is so far behind the throne these days, Mr. Chairman, he's virtually out the back door. The CNR, we are told in the Vancouver Sun — I understand from the Minister of Education — is being approached in some at least half-serious way to consider the purchase of the British Columbia Railway. That is a very serious assault on the morale and the integrity and the — competence of the people who run the BCR.

A more serious decision was taken, though, and its beginnings were in June of this last year. As we are aware, the cabinet meeting in Kelowna announced, I understand, on September 30 a new board of directors. They announced as well that that board of directors would be composed of first-rank

[ Page 951 ]

businessmen — or to quote the advertisement which appeared in the Vancouver Province of November 15, "the following prominent businessmen who have been appointed." We were told by the minister that this was a first-rate, first-rank board of directors competent to handle any and all of the problems which were obviously besetting the B.C. Rail.

Those people appointed on that date included Stanley M. Horner, chartered accountant; E.C. Hurd, chairman of Trans Mountain Pipe Line; Norman Hyland, president of Granduc Mines; Glen McPherson, chairman of the Vancouver Port Authority; Bruce Rome, president of Bruce Rome Construction; and Donald N. Watson, chairman of the board of Canadian Cellulose and past president of Pacific Western Airlines. Others continuing to serve on the board, according to the advertisement and the order-in-council, included Mr. Phillips himself, the hon. Minister of Economic Development, Mr. J.N. Fraine, past senior vice-president of Canadian Pacific Railway and Robert Swanson, professional engineer and president of Railway Appliance Research.

What that board seemed not to be aware of when they were appointed is that that minister had attempted on not one but two occasions to make very substantial changes in the senior management of B.C. Rail. He did so in consultation with Charles Maclean, and I propose later to demonstrate how that consultation occurred. What I'd like to point out, though, to set the stage for this argument, is that we see that the minister came into power promising to remove politics altogether from the operations of the B.C. Rail, and in one of his very first acts in office arranged to appoint himself to the board of directors of the B.C. Rail. We see secondly that the board of directors appointed in Kelowna on September 30 has been insulted and offended and mistrusted by that minister. May I remind you that they were appointed, and we were told that they were such a first-rate organization that they themselves would be able to handle any of the problems that the B.C. Rail faces?

We are now told that they are not competent to do anything of the sort, we need yet another commission to do it, one of the seven presently in operation — that only Justice McKenzie, Mr. Chapman and Mr. Welsh are competent to do it. It turns out that the board of directors wasn't competent after all. The minister can't have it both ways. He has insulted the commission, he has degraded the morale of his own staff, and he has attempted in a very clumsy and unsuccessful way to make some changes in the senior management of that railway. Morale is indeed at an all-time low.

I want to talk about a gentleman whose name is Jerry Neben. Mr. Neben appeared in the MEL trial on behalf of the B.C. Rail, having been invited to do so by Mr. Charles Maclean, counsel for B.C. Rail. The peculiar case of Mr. Neben is an example, in our view, of why this minister cannot be regarded as a competent member of that cabinet. Mr. Neben was one of a team of people who prepared a report. There were a series of engineering reports deposited at that trial. Mr. Maclean obtained a number of them. Two which come to mind in this particular matter are as follows: one was prepared by Mr. G.N. Kent of Halifax. Mr. Kent is a lawyer-engineer, and as this debate progresses today and in days to come, we will be discussing the contents of that particular report. The second was prepared by the firm of DeLeuw and Cather, 133 Wynford Drive, Don Mills, Ontario. This is an employee-owned firm, Mr. Chairman. It is a firm which was, as I mentioned, contracted by the B.C. Rail through Mr. Maclean to prepare a particular report.

The authors of that report were Mr. Al Mitton and Mr. Jerry Neben. Referring to Mr. Neben particularly, I am informed that Mr. Neben has been with this firm for four years. As a member of the firm he functions as the senior railway engineer. Mr. Neben and Mr. Mitton have prepared a most substantial report. Mr. Neben himself testified at the trial. He testified for the defence on behalf of B.C. Rail

A series of very peculiar things happened this last summer, Mr. Chairman. In the summer, over a period of time, Mr. Neben met privately with the hon. Minister of Economic Development and with Charles Maclean, jointly and personally. They discussed a number of matters. I understand that they talked about morale. They talked about confidence in the administration of the railway. I am further informed that by the end of that series of meetings, prior to September 30, on which date the new board was appointed, Mr. Neben was offered the job of vice-president for operations. He was offered that job and the purpose of that offer, of course, was to replace Mr. Mac Norris who, I am told, was not informed that any such meetings were occurring, much less that his own job was on the line.

In case the government decides to call inquiry No. 8 on this, I would like to advise that one of the major sources of this information appears, to our best information, to be one Arthur Weeks. So inquiry No. 8 might want to talk to Mr. Weeks some time soon.

By September, the minister had made an offer to Mr. Neben, I am informed, of the position of vice-president for operations of B.C. Rail.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, there's some dispute about that. It may be president as well. It appears that there was, reasonably enough, an attempted reorganization and some of those titles may have changed, but it is clear — no matter what the title may be — that the responsibilities were chiefly those of operating manager, general manager, and so on.

[ Page 952 ]

Those meetings took place. Mr. Phillips, as the minister, and Mr. Maclean, as the lawyer, were involved in those meetings. The job offer was accepted by Mr. Neben. He agreed to come out. He agreed to work for the B.C. Rail. He, a man with many years experience in railway operations and engineers, agreed to assist the people of British Columbia to bring some sense, some stability, into the operations of that railway. At the 11th hour, I'm informed, the hon. minister made a phone call and withdrew the offer because, it appears, as usual the minister had not done his homework. It appears, as usual, that the minister, in his crude and incompetent way, had forgotten to do a proper job. It appears to us, as usual, that this minister is once again guilty of the most gross incompetence. He discovered at the 11th hour, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Neben is an American citizen. He's not a Canadian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you canvassed this yesterday in your address.

MS. BROWN: I'm hearing it for the first time.

MR. BARBER: Well, if you'll hear me out, Mr. Chairman.... To continue, as it happens, today is the date upon which Mr. Neben is eligible for Canadian citizenship. His wife is a Canadian, I am informed, Mr. Chairman. He himself is an American. Apparently the offer was withdrawn at the 11th hour. Mr. Neben, I am informed, continues to work for the firm that previously employed him.

What's clear about this, I think, Mr. Chairman — and will become further clear when we talk about another individual who was approached — is that this clumsy, ill-advised and unsuccessful attempt to replace senior personnel at B.C. Rail is further evidence of incompetence and maladministration on the part of this minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political interference.

MR. BARBER: Political interference of the grossest sort — crude political interference of a sort to contradict completely the claims by that minister that there would be no such interference with the operations of B.C. Rail. But it doesn't stop with this particular case, Mr. Chairman, because they tried again, I am informed.

Further meetings were held, and I am told that they ended up approaching a Canadian citizen who's presently operating a mid-sized railway in the United States of America. I'm further informed that that gentleman was invited to meet the minister in Vancouver prior to September of this last year and that gentleman agreed to such a meeting. Unfortunately for him, he, too, got a phone call from Arthur Weeks. Mr. Weeks phoned him and said, I am informed, that it was impossible for the minister to meet him in Vancouver because the minister is such a busy fellow and has so many responsibilities, and would the gentleman from the United States operating the railway please agree to come and meet the minister in Fort St. James? According to the information I have, the gentleman in question told him to "shove it."

MR. LOEWEN: Name your source!

MR. BARBER: Well, when you decide to call inquiry No. 8....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me it's somewhat more important to discuss the quality of the decisions rather than the source of the information, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

AN HON. MEMBER: Charles, you got it in front of a butcher's shop.

MR. BARBER: That's right. I was wandering down Kitsilano and I bumped into another MLA.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: He found it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: What is clear, Mr. Chairman, is that a pattern has been established. The obvious face of the pattern is incompetence and maladministration. The substance of this aspect I'm revealing today, and further which will be revealed in days to come as these estimates go on and on and on, is that in a very direct, crude and political fashion, the minister attempted to interfere with the senior management of the railway and held meetings with, among others, the gentlemen whose names I have listed, and attempted to make a decision which finally he was unable to make at all because the offer was withdrawn in the first case and, in the second, they received a somewhat angry reply to Mr. Week's missive.

I have a number of questions for the minister and then a bit more information to provide. I wonder if the minister would care to confirm or deny that such meetings, separately and jointly, with Mr. Maclean Mr. Neben and himself took place. When did these

[ Page 953 ]

meetings take place? Who, if anyone else, attended those meetings? What was discussed? Were minutes taken?

What resulted from that decision? Was Mr. Norris himself, or any of the other senior personnel in B.C. Rail, informed of the contents or the outcome of those meetings? Was, in fact, Mr. Gerry Neben of DeLeuw Cather offered such a job? Was it withdrawn because of an apparent decision to make a political choice regarding citizenship? Were there some other reasons?

Would the minister care to tell us about what happened with the gentleman of Canadian citizenship presently working in the United States and operating a mid-sized railway, who was invited to meet with him in Vancouver and subsequently in Fort St. James? Why did Mr. Weeks call the meeting off? Was there more to it than we've found out so far? Was the offer serious? To whom was it made?

It's clear that another part of the trend in the pattern established is also this, Mr. Chairman. Keeping in mind what I've told you about this minister's crude political attempts to interfere with management....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you've used the word "crude" on several occasions. In my opinion, it's unparliamentary. Could you find a better choice of words?

MS. BROWN: It's not unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your Speaker's list.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: It's not unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Use a better choice of words, please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Haven't you ever heard of crude oil? (Laughter.)

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): We're not talking about the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: His obvious and political attempts to interfere with senior management and the board of B.C. Rail compromises him in a very grave way, Mr. Chairman. He is further compromised as follows. Will the minister please inform this House who was in attendance at the meeting of the board of B.C. Rail when the settlement for MEL Paving was made? Was the minister himself in attendance? If not, why not? When, precisely, did that meeting occur? Will the minister, in order to settle other points that will shortly be made in the future, agree to table the minutes? How did the members of the board present at that meeting actually vote?

It's fairly clear to us that the basis for that decision was political, the motivation for that decision was political and part of the quality of that decision was ineptness and incompetence. It's fairly clear to us that there was, indeed, a quarrel between the Premier and between the Minister of Economic Development. It seems fairly clear to us from current information that the minister, in a very peculiar and paradoxical way, was the victim of a kind of end run around him.

MEL was in a very peculiar position, Mr. Chairman. Prior to the trial itself, it never complained in any serious way whatever about its dealings with B.C. Rail. Indeed, by common account and testimony at the trial, they appeared delighted to be in a position to obtain these endless overruns. It's common knowledge in railway engineering circles that they have a reputation in Alberta as a kind of wheeler-dealer outfit, and they've been frequently criticized for some of their operations. They have generally, in fact, a poor reputation in Alberta.

But all the same, MEL, with that particular reputation, never particularly complained until all of a sudden, presumably on the basis of some information they received, they decided to file a claim. We're going to talk about how that information was received, what the board did with it and how the minister, in his attempts to interfere politically with the management of the railway, handled that.

MEL wrote on one occasion only to the board of B.C. Rail asking for a financial settlement. On one occasion only, according to information I received as recently as two hours ago, they wrote for that and were turned down by the board. They never made any serious attempt to obtain a financial settlement, and in advance of the notice of trial, gave no indication whatever that the company itself was in financial trouble.

There are some other questions that must be asked of, and answered by, the minister. What, precisely, did the staff of the BCR recommend in writing to the board regarding the MEL settlement? When did they recommend that? Will the minister table copies of their recommendation in this House? What, precisely, was the recommendation — verbal or in writing — of Mr. Mac Norris himself? When was that recommendation made? Was it made at the board of directors' meeting at which the MEL settlement was issued? Was it made on other occasions in the privacy of the minister's own office? If he made a suggestion in writing, would the minister agree as well to table

[ Page 954 ]

that particular recommendation? When were those recommendations made, and who made them, Mr. Chairman?

In attempting to find out what's been going on here, we must insist that the minister table those recommendations and table those minutes. This minister no longer has any choice whatever, Mr. Chairman. His own political position has been so hopelessly compromised by these private meetings he held with Mr. Maclean and Mr. Neben, by his obvious attempts at interference, that there is no way he can continue in that position and refuse to table the minutes, the reports and the recommendations leading to the MEL settlement. Because it is obvious to us there is a connection. It is obvious to us that there is a relationship between MEL's long-time hesitation to do anything other than happily be in the position of applying for overruns, and their sudden decision to announce impending bankruptcy, and the equally sudden decision of the board — upon reconstitution and upon what advice? — to settle out of court on Christmas eve, no less.

It's fairly clear that we are yet to get to the bottom of this minister's own involvement. It's fairly clear that there are a number of very serious questions about the extent to which he has intervened personally. It's fairly clear that this House has yet to be satisfied with the competence, personal or administrative, of that particular minister.

It's our consistent position that until these questions are answered, until those reports are filed, until the minutes are available, until we know precisely who advised the board to do what, this minister simply cannot continue to hold that particular office.

Our request is simply this: he answer those questions, he tell us about the curious meetings proposed with the gentleman from the American railway for Vancouver and Fort St. James, he table the minutes and the reports and the documents, he make one last attempt to clear his name. At the moment, his refusal to answer, and the significance of these questions raised, the significance of the conclusions being drawn, tell us that the man is simply not fit to hold that portfolio.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, in view of these new revelations, the minister continues to be silent. He's watched too many detective movies. He's heard his rights; he's been read his rights by the Premier. The Premier said: "You have your right to remain silent. If you give up your right to remain silent, anything you do or say may be used against you, Mr. Minister."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is irrelevant. Would you kindly get back to vote 79?

MR.NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, you're entitled to your opinion, but the silence of this minister isn't irrelevant to the people of British Columbia. We see a leaking ship out of control and the smiling minister there. He hasn't answered questions to the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). He hasn't answered questions concerning proliferation of reports, which seems to be the only activity that's going on in the northeast coal area.

I asked him earlier, Mr. Chairman, if he could shed any light on the report being done by Suzanne Veit and Associates — employment of women in the mining industry. He said that the women's division of the Department of Economic Development was involved in those studies, but we don't know about this study. How much is he paying to have this study? When is it to be tabled? When will it be finished?

Mr. Chairman, there are a great number of questions which the members of this House have a right to information on. Mr. Chairman, what studies are being done in terms of a townsite? Is there a study being done by Thompson, Berwick, Pratt and Partners on the location of a townsite? What will that mean in terms of location? What will it mean in terms of Chetwynd? Is there to be a new townsite there, or is it to mean more development in Chetwynd and Dawson Creek? Is there to be commuting? Has a study by Thompson, Berwick, Pratt and Partners — I would presume through the Minister of Municipal Affairs — been commissioned? What's the cost of that study?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) interjects. Certainly, a Taghum bridge would be much appreciated and would help the economic development of Nelson-Creston; it might help to reduce the 8.3 per cent unemployment, at least in the capital phase of construction. I think it would have long-term economic benefits. So I thank the minister, my fellow Kootenay member, for his interjection and for reminding me of that, if I could ever forget.

Mr. Chairman, it appears there's quite a paper chase going on. I don't know how much coal is going to be mined. But there is another study and I'd like to hear about that, and I'd like to hear about both of those.

MR. COCKE: Your No. 1 industry — studies.

MR. NICOLSON: Has the cabinet decided what its stance will be in terms of a townsite related to the coal development? What are they to do about utilities and services, about housing, about community facilities and commercial development related to the northeast coal development? What is their position? Who pays, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 955 ]

Who manages? Are we going to have another instant town which is a company town — paternalistic dolings-out of little goodies from the company? Are we going to have those special mortgage agreements? Is this going to be the environment for the persons that work in these areas? I think that people have a right to know. Are we going to have another Mackenzie or another Gold River? Those towns do have their problems. Elkford. Or is the plan to build upon the infrastructure that exists today, to build upon Chetwynd? Who is going to pay for this infrastructure? Who's going to manage it? Is it going to be another company town? What has the minister got to say about that?

I think it might be assumed that the base cost of the new town — the road, the sewer and the water, et cetera — will be borne by the government. Is the minister going to say yes, that's the case, that we're planning for the government to pay for the roads and the sewers and the water and such infrastructure? Or is that going to be borne also as one of the costs of the development by the mining companies?

What are the labour force estimates and the population projections for the area? The mining companies — have they provided you with these detailed labour force estimates? We know that there have been some estimates that the total employment would be 775 in 1977 for construction and initial operation, rising to 2,401 in 1979, but this is based on three operations — Sukunka...Babcock, Wolverine and Bullmoose. But, Mr. Chairman, the minister has not tabled studies in the House. We don't know what these decisions are going to be. We don't know what the imposts on the people of British Columbia or these developments in the minister's riding are going to be — how much will have to be paid, how much of the cost will have to be borne by the taxpayer at large.

I also earlier asked the minister to shed some light on some of these committees and on some of the people involved. There seems to be a tremendous amount of jargon being developed, but not much employment.

Could the minister tell us if there's one person assigned to collect progress reviews from the various bureaucratic divisions of government? And is there another person who is assigned to update the timing chart? And is there another person assigned to amending the project activity chart? What is going on?

There also seems to be subcommittee piled upon subcommittee. Manpower subcommittee — what is the purpose of the manpower subcommittee? Where do you draw this from? Who are involved? What department? Federal government agencies and provincial government agencies — which companies are involved? And with the townsite community subcommittee, who is involved in that? What liaison is taking place with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and other agencies — water rights, highways? What is the nature of your liaison with DREE? And what is the interdepartmental committee for pilot training doing? Obviously it's not training pilots.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, they've been farming out work. The minister could perhaps enlighten us on the work being done by Thompson, Berwick and Pratt. He could be telling us who is to pay, and who is to manage in this development in terms of townsite. He could give us some detailed estimates of the population projections, the labour force. These things are very important and I should think that they're important in his Tiding where unemployment has doubled since he became minister.

Mr. Chairman, Denison Mines has stated that they would be willing to see a system of employment where there would be a system of priorities: where locals would be hired first; second would be residents of British Columbia; third would be the rest of Canada, and, lastly, immigrant labour would be brought in where specialized skills were not available.

Will the minister stand up and assure us in this House that this policy, which was policy set on other projects in this province, such as the Seven-Mile Dam at Pend-d'Oreille, will be the policy in this area? Will the other mining companies agree to this type of a policy of local people first, British Columbians second, Canadians third and only then immigrant labour to be brought in where the skilled workers cannot be brought in? What efforts are being made in terms of training a work force? We know that the start-up problems of Kaiser Coal were largely due to problems with both inexperienced management — they pretended to have a skill and expertise but that proved to be somewhat lacking — and to the lacking skill in terms of trained miners. They found, Mr. Chairman, that they could take trained underground miners and they adapted very quickly to the surface mining techniques, but to bring in people with other skills proved highly unsatisfactory. What studies have been taken in terms of manpower training? What preparations are there and will the minister make those public? I would also hope that the minister would make public the document that he quoted from earlier today before he switched to the piece of paper.

Has the minister hired another consultant to carry out an employment survey in the region? What are the terms of reference? Will it involve a questionnaire preparation? Will it involve a sample of the public and interview training and pre-testing interviews? Will it involve administration in the field and data processing, coding, keypunching, programming, tabulating and analysis and report write-up, ad nauseam? Is this what the minister intends — to get another report? Has the minister agreed to such a

[ Page 956 ]

report? That is, for his benefit, a report to carry out an employment survey in the region and to have the facts questionnaire involve the public. Is that just a publicity stunt? Is it just there to make the people in his riding feel that something is actually happening? Is it actually underway?

Would the minister perhaps consult with his deputy and find out what's going on? Because we know that minister, as the Premier has said, is overworked. The minister has been working seven days a week, about 18 hours a day, according to the Premier. I think, Mr. Chairman, now that the Premier is here, that he should give that minister a vacation — preferably for a couple of years — but at least until certain hearings have taken place surrounding activities in his office...and in his riding, I suppose.

Mr. Chairman, is there also other contract work out, more consultants doing work on demography, doing work on labour markets and labour supply? It appears, Mr. Chairman, that there have been a lot of jobs created for consultants but, you know, they're almost becoming.... I think the Premier, Mr. Chairman, has been a bad influence. He's been spending so much time back in Ottawa that they're starting to look like the feds. Mr. Chairman, they're so full of studies that by the time they're finished with the DREE grant they're going to have spent it all on studies and they won't have produced any jobs. Now, Mr. Chairman, what are the estimates of the number of jobs per million metric tons of clean coal? I'd like to hear that from the minister. What kind of jobs are going to be created? Mr. Chairman, they should have some idea of this, maybe from reviewing existing coal operations. What are the ministry's estimates? What are the estimates of the companies involved? Mr. Chairman, these are more of the questions that we'd like to know about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. NICOLSON: We would also like to know, Mr. Chairman, if, when Mr. Bingham said that they only heard about a possible contract to build 2,000 freight cars on January 5 and that they had to have their submission in by January 17 — and Mr. Bingham certainly protested that and made it public — the minister got in touch with the Premier so that they could approach the federal government in the strongest possible terms objecting to that high-handed treatment.

There was not a whisper in the press that the Premier was concerned about the way in which Railwest was being treated by a federal government Crown corporation. No, he goes back there and he skates on the Rideau Canal. But, Mr. Chairman, perhaps he has broader ambitions; perhaps he wants to be the Premier some day.

AN HON.MEMBER: Prime Minister.

MR. NICOLSON: Perhaps he also wants to be a Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, did the Premier say anything or did the Minister of Economic Development have anything to say with his counterparts in Ottawa about the high-handed manner in which Railwest has been treated by those eastern concerns? You know, the Premier is so pleased with himself that they even let him into some of the ministers' offices back there and called him by his first name. And they might recognize him as well. But, Mr. Chairman, I think he should be a little bit more guarded than that. I think he has to be a little bit tougher. It's just typical that they have been absolutely supine in this case with the off-handed treatment of Railwest.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier thinks that's a joke, It was a contract for 2,000 railcars which could have created a great deal of employment in the Squamish area. Railwest was not given a chance. The minister was not interested; the Premier apparently was not interested in creating jobs. All they have created, Mr. Chairman, is more and more unemployment in this province. That's their record; that's the record. Maybe the Premier has created some jobs back east where they tax skates — CCM tax.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: You were using CCMs, were you, Mr. Premier? That's. good. They don't make CCM skates here in British Columbia.

I think we would like to know what the availability of tradesmen will be, what the requirements for tradesmen will be in both the construction phase and in the mining phase of this development. What about production personnel? How many production personnel are anticipated? And administrative staff? Are these people available in the local area? Are these people available in British Columbia? If not, what steps are being taken to train people in these areas?

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that Utah Mines' Carbon Creek project and Crows Nest Industries' Lang Creek project expect 301 and 290 employees per million metric tons of clean coal in their operations. I'd like to know what estimates that the department is working upon, and how many employees they expect to employ per million metric tons of clean coal. These are very specific questions for which the minister should have answers.

On August 27, 1976, there was a report of Mr. Johann Schuyff, who was a researcher in Labour, that indicated that underground mining requires 5 to 40 less operational people per million metric tons of clean coal, and 50 less skilled maintenance personnel. I want to know if the employment projections of his

[ Page 957 ]

department are correct. I want to know that they are and how they would compare in view of these facts.

What is the schedule? When is it anticipated that Sukunka Coal will start providing direct employment either in development or in permanent operation of Wolverine, Babcock, Bullmoose North, and of Bullmoose South, Cinnabar, Carbon Creek, Bellecourt? When will these operations come on? What is the schedule? What is the employment to be created? I'm concerned that the government is overestimating the employment potential and the employment benefits of this area. Surely with the government not raising coal royalties — content to let them stay at $1.50 when the companies presently in operation were prepared to open them up, have them go up to $2.50 back in 1976 — it appears that there is not the job projection in this project. It appears that there is not the economic viability, as pointed out by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). So what are we subsidizing? What is going on here? I think there are many, many important questions that have to be answered. The minister should be obliged, and should be directed by the Premier, to table these reports. Let the light shine in.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let the light go out.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, it could very well be that the light will go out if this government stays in power much longer and continues upon its present path.

I look forward to hearing from that minister, perhaps later this evening.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tables the report of the Public Service Labour Relations Act for 1976 and the report of regulations issued pursuant to the Provincial Elections Act during 1976.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.