[ Page 959 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 79.

Mr. Lockstead — 959

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 960

Mr. Cocke — 960

Mr. Skelly — 961

Mr.Loewen — 964

Mr. King — 965

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 966

Mrs. Wallace — 966

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 967

Mr. Skelly — 968

Ms. Sanford — 968

Mr. Nicolson — 970

Ms. Brown — 972

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 974

Mrs. Dailly — 974

Mr. Stupich — 975

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 975

Mr. Barnes — 976

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 977

Mr. Nicolson — 978

Ms. Brown — 979

Division on vote 79 — 979

On vote 80.

Mr. King — 979

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 979

Mr. Wallace — 980

Ms. Brown — 981

Division on vote 80 — 982

On vote 81.

Mr. Wallace — 982

Mr. King — 982

On vote 82.

Mr. King — 983

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 983

Mr. Wallace — 983

On vote 83.

Mr. King — 984

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 984

Ministry of Finance estimates, vote 2 — 984

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I'm tempted to let it pass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do have a couple of questions to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. The last time I spoke under this particular vote I didn't get too many answers. I thought that by now the minister has had the opportunity of thinking over and looking through the files — at least any of the files he has left — and perhaps coming up with some answers.

The main reason, though, that I did want to take my place for a few minutes in this debate this evening was that yesterday morning I took the trouble to find out what the unemployment rate was in my riding. In the Powell River area — and I think the minister might be interested in this — I've been quoting in this Legislature unemployment rates of 15 to 18 per cent. I was shocked yesterday morning when I found out from Manpower that the unemployment rate was computed to be 20 per cent in the Powell River area. That's a 2 per cent increase over the upper figure that I had quoted in this House previously. I had asked Manpower and UIC what type of jobs might be available. They told me there were only 9 or 10 job listings in all of the Powell River area, a regional area of about 30,000 to 32,000 people.

There is no demand for new workers in logging at this time and quite a few of our loggers are unemployed at the moment although some, I understand, will be going back to work next week. MacMillan Bloedel Company, the biggest employer in that particular area, has had no jobs listed for the last six months. And there is no likelihood of any hiring in the foreseeable future by that company because, as I explained earlier, a modernization programme is taking place but is really resulting in a loss of jobs in the area.

There is no construction going on in Powell River. Three-quarters of the construction workers are unemployed in the Powell River area at the moment. That's quite a high amount in my opinion, Mr. Chairman.

I should tell you — just as an aside, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — that I had phone calls today since my last speech in the House, because my weekly column appeared in the paper and people saw I was interested in a certain amount of rational economic development in the area. So today I did receive a number of phone calls from people with ideas that they'd like to investigate and implement. I hope you don't mind that I gave them your address and asked them to send me a copy of their application. I hope that when you receive this correspondence from these various groups of people in my riding that you will give them serious consideration.

I did ask you this before, Mr. Minister. Speaking earlier in this House I had asked for a 30 per cent reduction in ferry rates. I wasn't being frivolous. I was seriously asking our minister and your government to consider this proposal seriously because, Mr. Minister, figures show that the economies of Vancouver Island and theSunshine Coast areas have suffered severely and directly as a result of those horrendous fare increases. My question to you was, and hopefully you will answer: did you stand up in cabinet and treasury board and suggest — and fight for — reduced ferry fares?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must suggest that this particular material perhaps would be better covered under the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) .

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, and I intend to make this speech again. I'm a sadist.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Spare us!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not abuse the rules of the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have no intention of doing that, Mr. Chairman.

All right, what else have we got left here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You know, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would like me to come over. I'll be over as soon as I finish this speech.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Economic Development to really take a close look at the problems existing on Texada Island as well. I've spoken about this before, and I won't go

[ Page 960 ]

through it again, but I would like some assurances from the minister that the economic situation there because of the mine closure will be looked at and that the Ministry of Economic Development and perhaps BCDC will become involved in long-range programmes and short-range programmes — short-range preferably, because we've been promised long-range programmes already — to help alleviate the unemployment situation and economic situation of that particular area. I think that's very important.

Well, what other questions did I ask? I think that's about it, Mr. Chairman. I hope the minister will just take a few minutes to stand up and perhaps answer some of these questions.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): I certainly can understand the member's concern for his area, and I appreciate that. With regard to positive suggestions from your area, certainly, they will always be taken under consideration. If there's something that our department can do in working with any other department or indeed, with any enterprise, we'll certainly be most willing to help and cooperate.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the ferry fares, he'll have to take that up with the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) .

With regard to Texada Island, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) stated very positively in the House that every effort would be made to retrain and assist any of your constituents who can be assisted in retraining, in obtaining new occupations and so forth.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to clarify a point with the minister, I know that Manpower has done quite a good job in finding jobs for some of the people who had lost their employment at Texada Mines because of the closure. But I'm really referring to the possibility of implementing perhaps a different kind of industry in that area, looking at various proposals that probably have been at least sent to your office, and perhaps doing a bit of a study.

Just come in and have a look at the area and look for local employment opportunities. Don't send our skilled people up to the Yukon and Sparwood and Alberta. A lot of them are going to Alberta, by the way, because 112,000 people are unemployed here in the province. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of thing I'd like to see. Send one of your qualified people in there to have a look. I'd be glad to take him around.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I just want to give this minister an opportunity tonight to do his very best to make an honest man out of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen). That member made a number of announcements in New Westminster, made a number of announcements in this House, having pre-distributed his speech. He's something like the member for Hawaii, who really doesn't have quite that ambition, you know. He'd like to do it, but he just hasn't got quite the ambition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're on vote 79.

MR. COCKE: Is that right? Well, now, you know, Mr. Chairman, would you just have a little patience, because I've noticed around here that some of the chairmen have a tendency to be impatient, particularly in the evenings. You know, that's really unlike you because you're such a tolerant, patient chap.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to vote 79, sir.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, let me show you how this ties in. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds made a long speech, and in his speech he made some announcements about a hotel and about....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Are you saying it's true?

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Absolutely.

MR. COCKE: Then the minister will stand up and tell us that they're going to build a hotel, a convention centre, an office building and a courthouse in New Westminster on that site. He'll do it tonight if it's true. If it isn't true, the minister will sit there just like he did the last time I asked him.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I thought that possibly the minister could clarify this issue. Just for a second I think I'll take my seat and see if he's going to respond to the question that I'm asking. It's only a very simple question. Mr. Minister of Economic Development, this member made an announcement on your behalf. Is it true? Is BCDC going to do all this?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I believe the announcement said that the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members! The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I believe the announcement

[ Page 961 ]

said that the British Columbia Development Corporation would act as project manager to bring the development about. It may be even larger and better than you anticipated.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's got to be the joke of the century. Specific announcements were made by that little member. This minister is not making those specific announcements. I want to hear out of his sweet lips those dulcet tones that he used to send over here by the hour when he was in opposition. He was able to make all sorts of announcements and all sorts of suggestions at that time, Mr. Chairman. I suspect that the Minister of Economic Development has difficulty with this one. Would you like to be a little more specific, Mr. Minister?

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to follow up on some of the questions asked by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and some of the suggestions he made concerning insurance for people involved in the travel industry, particularly people involved in the industry on Vancouver Island, Mr. Chairman. I thought it was a valid suggestion, and it is within the scope of the B.C. Development Corporation to engage in this type of insurance and there are precedents for it. I think the member for Oak Bay has cited crop insurance and that type of thing, that it is possible for the government to become involved in stabilizing industry. I'm wondering if the minister has a response to that query by the member for Oak Bay.

I have some information from people involved in the travel industry in Alberni, Mr. Chairman, who indicate that over the past five years business has been increasing rapidly. Their unit rental-nights have increased fantastically — 20 per cent — right up until April, 1976, at the time the fare rate increases were announced on the ferry system. At that time, Mr. Chairman, unit rental-nights dropped off fantastically. They're even less in 1977, in the first month of 1977, than they were in 1972.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this could better be covered perhaps under the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MR. SKELLY: No, I don't think that the industry expects any satisfaction there. Now, I'd like to give you some statistics, Mr. Chairman, from a woman who has been involved in the industry for 39 years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this would better be covered under the Minister of Travel Industry.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, I'd like to explain something to you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: This is Economic Development.

MR. SKELLY: The B.C. Development Corporation has the authority, under their Act, to make loans and assistance available to businesses, and they announced in 1974 and 1975 that they were willing to make these loans available to people involved in the travel industry, so it is this minister's responsibility. That's written right into the legislation. It's part of the legislative authority of this minister, Mr. Chairman. He has that authority under the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act. I'd now like to give you some statistics on unit rental-nights for this motel in my riding that is owned by a woman who has been in the business for 39 years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have to remind you for a third time that this material ought better to be covered under the Minister of Travel Industry. I might remind you that May, at page 725 of his 18th edition, 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." I would suggest that the line of reasoning that you are now taking ought better to be discussed under the Minister of Travel Industry. If it were to be presumed that all matters which in any way affect the economy could be discussed under the Ministry of Economic Development, then all of the debate would be discussed under his salary. I must restrict the debate to his official conduct, and so I must ask you....

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the member for Oak Bay twice brought this matter up and he was never called to order. It was never brought to his attention that he was out of order. The matter of an insurance proposal for people involved in the travel industry was considered by the Chairman at that time to be under the administrative jurisdiction of the Economic Development minister because he's on the board of the B.C. Development Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On your point of order, hon. member, I must remind you that perhaps in passing comment in debate a point like this could be made, but I must draw to your attention that it is the basis of your particular point at this time. Therefore I draw to your attention that this ought better to be discussed under the Minister of Travel Industry. I think that the hon. member is convinced of this in his own mind and would like to change his material.

[ Page 962 ]

MR. SKELLY: That's not so, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the B.C. Development Corporation has stated that they're interested in assisting people who have ski developments who are suffering because of weather problems and because of problems in the tourist industry. This is in the newspapers, so this is material that the B.C. Development Corporation is presently considering. This minister is responsible to the House for that corporation and that is why I'm bringing this matter up at this time. The Minister of Travel Industry does not have under her jurisdiction such a corporation and cannot provide that kind of insurance. This is the only minister in the government who has that jurisdiction.

So what I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman, is the proposal for an insurance or an assistance programme to the travel industry through the B.C. Development Corporation. I'd just like to give statistics based on unit rental-nights for the month of January and it'll take a very short time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we might come to a solution on this particular problem if you would direct your remarks to the direct relationship of the Development Corporation to this particular problem. But it seems to me that you are beginning to embark on material that would relate to statistics in this particular area.

MR. SKELLY: No, it has nothing to do with any other minister. It has to do with the minister's power under the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act to make loans to industry and to forgive principal or interest on those loans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the interest of fairness, hon. member, I will listen to you until you have made your premise clear, and if it appears then to the Chair that you are out of order, then I'll remind you when that time is.

MR. SKELLY: I thank you for doing that, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of fairness.

Now, as I said, this woman has been involved in the travel industry for 39 years. She is what you might call a professional or an expert in the industry. She has never written to me before and has never felt the need to write to her MLA before. This is a unique problem that she's run into. Now in 1972, in January, she rented 53 unit rental-nights in this motel in Qualicum Beach; in 1973 it went up to 54; in 1974 to 63; in 1975, the last year of the NDP government, to 96; in 1976, the first year of the present government, it went up to 99; in 1977, it's down to 40. She can't even make payments on her motel.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) got up and requested that the minister investigate the problems faced by people on Vancouver Island and consider, through the B.C. Development Corporation, some form of assistance to people in this industry, particularly on Vancouver Island, who are suffering as a result of the impact of ferry rate increases on that industry.

Now, of course, the best solution to the problem would be to lower ferry rates to a reasonable rate, Mr. Chairman, but that, of course, is not under this minister's jurisdiction. As a result, we are asking the minister to consider assisting the hospitality industry on Vancouver Island to weather the storm of the Social Credit administration and to provide some kind of insurance. As long as this administration is in power and as long as the travel industry on Vancouver Island must suffer under those ferry rates, will the minister assist that industry, by lending them money and then relieving their principal or interest, until such time as they can recover from the impost that this government has worked upon it? I'll await the minister's answer to that question.

I'd like to quote annual statistics that the lady has provided me, Mr. Chairman, if I may. In 1972 the total unit rental-nights was 1,802; 1973 — 1,862; 1974 — 2,087; 1975 — 2,179. These are — the interesting ones, Mr. Chairman, because from January through May of 1976 — and that's before the ferry rate increases — she had a record high unit rental-nights of 736, compared to a previous high of 674. She had a record high in that year before the ferry rate increases were announced. In the last part of 1976 she has a record low, lower than her unit rental-nights have ever been since 1972, directly attributable to those ferry rates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, I think your point is well made.

MR. SKELLY: So I am asking the minister, will he make assistance available to these people through the B.C. Development Corporation? Of course, I will be asking the present Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) if he will lower the ferry rates. But in the meantime, some assistance has to be made available through the Development Corporation, because that's the only machinery available right now to people who are suffering as a result of those rate increases.

The other thing I wanted to ask the minister about — and I hope he'll get up and answer a few questions for a change — is on the B.C. Rail. Again, I'm not harping back to problems associated with civil fraud involved in paving contracts or grading contracts and this type of thing.

Apparently the state of Alaska has done a feasibility study on interconnecting the Alaska State Railway with B.C. Rail, thereby connecting the state of Alaska to the "lower 48," as the other states are called up there. That's not a new proposal. The

[ Page 963 ]

former Premier, when Prudhoe Bay oil was being discussed back in March of 1973, proposed that connecting the Alaska State Railway with B.C. Rail and interconnecting with rail lines in the lower 48 states was the best way — an economically and environmentally sound way, Mr. Chairman — of transporting oil from Alaska to the lower 48 states.

Now, when this minister got up in the House — I believe it was last Thursday — he said that the province was looking at all ways of transporting oil from Alaska. They were monitoring hearings — apparently hearings that aren't taking place at the moment — but he said they were monitoring hearings and that eventually the British Columbia government would come up with a proposal.

I'm wondering if the minister has received any representation from the state of Alaska or if he has discussed with the state of Alaska the idea of interconnecting the rail systems of our province and of the state of Alaska through Watson Lake as proposed by that state. Alaska state advocates the transporting of mineral concentrates and products of that state out through British Columbia's rail system and into the lower 48.

I'm particularly interested in the idea of transporting oil. This was the programme advocated by the former Premier when he went to Washington back in March, 1973. One way we could avoid the threat of oil pollution on the west coast of British Columbia, one way we could eliminate the necessity of considering such dangerous ports as Kitimat, is by considering the alternative of rail transport of oil. When the Leader of the Opposition brought that up back in March of 1973, the opposition at that time — the Social Credit opposition — laughed at him; they had never heard of that idea before. It was a new idea, so they laughed at it; they attacked it. The minister who calls us negative now attacked that idea. He went back to Ottawa and the Liberals laughed at it. They are now in coalition with the present Social Credit government, as you're well aware, Mr. Chairman.

I was looking in Fortune magazine just a few days ago, and it said that Southern Pacific Railway is now running a pipeline on wheels. And they say that they can absorb between 300,000 and 600,000 barrels a day of surplus Alaska crude using railway facilities that are already in existence. I couldn't believe it — a railway, using unit trains to absorb all that Alaska crude oil to deliver it to refineries in the northern-tier states, to those seven critical refineries that will be served by the proposed Kitimat pipeline. I read through the ads and I talked to officials of the Southern Pacific Railway Company this afternoon. They feel there is enough equipment, locomotive power and tracks available to provide a viable alternative to pipeline proposals presently being advocated in Canada and the United States. A single train, Mr. Chairman, will transport 1.6 million gallons of crude oil. That's 38,000 barrels. So 10 unit trains operating could take the full daily surplus capacity of the Alaska production at Valdez, Alaska, and absorb it into the United States market and service those critical midwestern refineries that need the Alaska crude and are seeking Alaska crude supplies through the Kitimat pipeline.

I'm wondering if the minister has been in touch with Alaska State Railways and with the Canadian government to discuss the possibility of bringing Alaska crude out and providing rail services between Alaska, British Columbia and the lower 48.

I'll sit down, Mr. Chairman, and give the minister an opportunity to answer those questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the tourist industry, any application from individuals will have to stand on its own merit. The member seems to want to make this political relating it to ferry rates. He knows that the tourist industry in all of Canada, and particularly all of western Canada, was down last year.

The member seems to be a bit mixed up, because when I was speaking about the railway to Alaska I said there had been a study completed in Alaska and that there were plans for a meeting in Washington between officials of Alaska, Canada, British Columbia and the United States in Washington. To my knowledge there is no talk of transporting oil over that railway. It would be a general merchandise railway.

MR. SKELLY: That's basically the question I was asking the minister: is it being considered as a railway to transport oil? In discussing the whole question with Southern Pacific officials, they feel that the railway is profitable enough transporting oil that they can upgrade track facilities in the United States, something they haven't been able to do in recent years because of the unprofitability of rail services. But by transporting oil they feel that this is possible, and that's why possibly, when the minister is going to this conference in Washington state to meet with American officials on the interconnection of Alaska State Railways and B.C. Rail, it might be worthwhile for B.C. Rail and for the Americans and for the environment of the north coast of this province if he is willing to make representations to the Americans that surplus Alaska crude be transported.

I'm not trying to make anything political out of this, Mr. Minister; I am simply making the suggestion. It has been shown in the United States — and Southern Pacific is willing to provide the information — that transport of crude by rail is feasible and is profitable. In fact, one of the railcar manufacturing companies in the U.S. — and this comes under your jurisdiction as minister responsible for B.C. Rail — has

[ Page 964 ]

set up a unit-train system where all the cars are interconnected. You simply connect the cars to a pipeline, you fill up the cars and you can transport the whole unit train and unload it through a single process rather than unloading each car. So it is economically feasible. There are new developments in this area that the minister should be aware of, and possibly he should make representations to the United States and to Alaskan state officials when he meets them in Washington in the interests of preserving the environment of the northwest coast of this province and in the Georgia Strait area.

I also don't want to make a political issue of the question of ferry rates and its impact on the hotel industry. What I will do, Mr. Chairman, for that lady who wrote me and said that she had been suffering this year the worst year in her experience since 1972.... Now I realize that travel industry across Canada has been down substantially over the last year, but in this case, on Vancouver Island, the unit rental nights are down over 1972.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I warn you for the last time that this has been well covered and I ask you now to change your subject material to something not related to Travel Industry. If you refuse to do so, I must read to you the citations out of our standing orders, and our supporting material in May.

MR. SKELLY: I cannot refuse you, Mr. Chairman, but I will take the minister's suggestion. I'll say that his Development Corporation is willing to consider her case on its merits. I am just stating that I do not intend to make a political issue of this case. But I will refer her to the minister.

MR. LOEWEN: New Westminster, unfortunately, has been receiving very inadequate representation. Once again, in his speech in the House this evening he has referred to certain things that I have said that are just slightly misrepresented, but gives it an altogether different inflection.

First of all, he has suggested that I said that the New Westminster courthouse would be built. Now what I really said was that we will know within two or three months whether or not it will be built. It has been pointed out to me, Mr. Chairman, that three teams of architects have been commissioned to come up with distinctive plans for the development in New Westminster. This is very important, I believe, for this House to understand. Three teams of architects — two architects each — have been commissioned to come up with distinctive plans for the development in New Westminster — one of the greatest developments ever in British Columbia and in Canada. These plans are to be in to the British Columbia Development Corporation within two weeks.

Furthermore, another developer in the city of New Westminster has joined this grand programme, this grand plan, and has committed his four blocks to the already large development of 12 acres of the city of New Westminster. I thought that the member for New Westminster would really appreciate this additional knowledge and this additional information.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, now that the member has stood up and made all these glorious announcements, I want to hear it officially from the minister's mouth. That member has gone rushing around New Westminster. He has done nothing in his own constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, nothing since the day he was elected. They don't even know he's there. He spends all his time running up and down Columbia Street.

The thing he should do, however, is encourage the minister, when he makes remarks like he just did, when he makes announcements, to stand up and say: "Yes, that's what we're going to do. We're going to build the office buildings. We have the extra four blocks." Where are those four blocks, Digger? (Laughter.)

They've got all sorts of ideas, and I have too. I have had all sorts of ideas for years about what you can do about certain business districts and other areas. I have a particular idea about what they can do with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I don't want some guy, I don't want some cowboy coming into New Westminster, building up hopes that are not to be fulfilled. Let me ask the Minister of Economic Development to stand up and say that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is on track.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for.... It's a tie between these two. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) followed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) .

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Harv.... I mean, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you please take your seat for just a moment? I'll recognize you in just a minute.

It is noticeable that hon. members of this House are beginning to refer to each other in names other than as is provided in our standing orders. May I remind you that we refer to each other here only by our constituency designation or by our ministerial association...

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Will you tell us the name that has offended the rules?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and therefore when the chairman is referred to, hon. member, as "Harv," I

[ Page 965 ]

would see this as a breach of the rules. Therefore I would ask that all members perhaps would observe the standing orders that are provided for us and hence provide for more decent order in the House.

MR. KING: You did very well, Mr. Chairman, and I promise not to refer to you as "Harv" any longer. I stand rebuked, sir, and I hope that in suggesting this is not an appropriate way to refer to hon. members that's not a rejection of my proffering my hand of friendship to the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for the hon. Minister of Economic Development. I would ask him whether or not he has given consideration to the proposal put forward by my colleague, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), with respect to some special assistance for the operators of ski resorts in the province. The situation, in my view, is a bit analogous to a flood situation in a given year...

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Pretty appropriate considering the snow job we're getting here.

MR. KING: ...a situation where flood damage, acts of God, can create a tremendous loss for farmers or other small businesses, and surely it is an act of God when the province is devoid almost of snow in the current year.

In my own particular area, Mr. Chairman, where we normally have a snowfall of about 250 inches — and hence we all have aluminum roofs on our abodes — we, at the moment, have bare streets and, consequently, a bare ski hill as well. Our operator in Revelstoke, Paul Mair, has developed Mount Mackenzie pretty well on a shoestring. He invested I think in excess of $200,000 in the provision of a new chalet and ski shop just last year in preparation for the current ski season and, of course, has operated in a very, very limited way over the past few weeks. This story is true of pretty well the entire province. It's true of the Kimberley area. It's true of Rossland, of Nelson, of Kamloops. I think Silver Star at Vernon has been able to operate on a bit more stable basis than most of the others. What I'm suggesting is that I think the member for Nelson-Creston put forward a rational and reasonable suggestion to the minister, and that is that at least some long-term, low-interest loans be made available to the private operators which might see them over this very, very difficult winter and into the next year. For the public facilities, I think a system of grants could be considered.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that all of these facilities, whether they be public or private, certainly have a profound effect on the tourist industry of the province. They have a profound effect in terms of the recreational opportunity for the residents in all of these regions of British Columbia, and I think it would be a real calamity — I think it would be a disaster — if the government sat idly by and watched many of these facilities go into receivership or simply fold up and have to sell off their assets to cut their losses. We're aware that Todd Mountain at Kamloops went into receivership last fall, and I'm afraid that the same fate faces other ski facilities in the province, too.

My own particular area is one that's hard hit because of the capital investment they undertook in reasonable anticipation of the normal snowfall and, as I have indicated, my area is one of the heavy snow belts in the province. I think Revelstoke, Kimberley and Rossland are the noted areas in the province for a snowfall. So this is something that I think the minister should look at very seriously. It could be the difference between staying in operation and going into receivership. This would allow them to phase the loss that they've realized this winter over a longer period of time, with the provision of some operating capital by the government, to service debt and maintain operating costs. I would point out that some of them stayed in operation simply because they had sold season tickets to a limited number of people, and out of deference to their obligation in the community they continued to operate, despite the fact that had they closed they would have been in a better profit position. Certainly they wouldn't have had the overhead of operating.

So most of them are responsible people in the community who have contributed something in terms of the recreational value to the total province. Certainly it means a great deal in terms of the current tourist potential and the future potential. I think it's something that should be looked at, and I want to indicate to the minister that he has my support in making some appraisals — some inventory — of the total picture with the ski-hill operators in the province. It is a catastrophic year. It's a very, very unusual thing, something that probably won't happen again for 40 years. Certainly that's the case in my own home town. It's 40 years since we had such a minimal snowfall.

I want to lend my support to the proposition put forward by the member from Revelstoke-Slocan. I have issued my criticism of the minister for his failure to act in other areas. I think he now has an opportunity to redeem himself, Mr. Chairman, and to certainly gain back some of the confidence that I have lost, to show some initiative and help these people who are facing a very unusual and very difficult time. I am sure that the people of British Columbia, because of their love for recreational opportunity, because of their recognition of the major part that tourism plays in the province, would support that kind of initiative. I would like to ask the minister to respond and tell me what kind of plans, if any, he has in this regard.

[ Page 966 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern very much. In that regard I want to tell him that starting tomorrow morning my department will start a complete inventory of all ski facilities in British Columbia to make an accurate inventory of the problems caused this year. After we have that inventory we will make a special deal to come up with something. I'm not saying just what, but due to its seriousness, I don't think we can leave this up to the Development Corporation because, as you know, they run on a basis of loans. They have no jurisdiction over making special commitments.

As I say, we'll start in the morning. We'll do a complete inventory of all ski facilities in the province; we'll assess their situations. Once that inventory is completed with regard to the amount of money that is needed, it could be that we'll be coming back to this House with something on it as soon as we get a complete assessment.

I thank the member for his sincere plea. I know that in your area.... I know I'd like to go away skiing myself if I ever get my estimates through.

MR. KING: Come on up and we'll give you a free ride.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think I've had a free ride in the Legislature for the last week and a half.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I have a few items I would like to raise with the hon. member for South Peace, the hon. Minister of Economic Development. I don't really have a question I want to ask him at the moment, but I have an answer for him. Some time ago I asked a question about DREE, and I've been waiting for the minister to answer. But he hasn't answered so I think that for the information of this House I would like, particularly in view of the Premier's remarks.... I'm sorry the Premier is not in the House at the moment.

The Premier waxed very eloquent about all the wonderful things that were happening with DREE as a result of this administration and as the result of the efforts of that particular Minister of Economic Development. It just so happens that I have some information here provided by the Ministry of Economic Development — not by the minister but by the department — in response to my requests which the minister had indicated I hadn't made but which, in fact, I had made, I now have the answers, and I am sorry the minister hasn't seen fit to give me these answers as I am sure he must have them now too.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They were delivered today.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right. But you haven't seen fit to read it into the House, Mr. Minister, so I think that I should read it into the House, in view of the remarks that the Premier made.

Now, because I have a letter here which says it is from the Economic Development department and it refers to an attachment.... Unfortunately, that attachment wasn't stapled to this letter; the Premier might suggest that it wasn't an attachment to that letter. But the fact remains that this attachment does bear the same date, and at the bottom it says: "Source: ministry records and DREE publications and officials."

These figures are very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because they show that for 1975-76 the total moneys in DREE amounted to $8.5 million. Now in 1975 and 1976 it was mainly under the administration of the former government. We would expect, in view of what the Premier has told us today and what the minister has said in response to my remarks and my quotations of him from Hansard last year, to see a great improvement in the amount of money expended in the development of regional economic concerns here in this province. But what do we see? We see, instead of $8.5 million in 1975-1976 — according to these figures provided to me — a total of $6.7 million only. That's not an increase but a reduction, Mr. Chairman. Now in view of what the Premier said earlier and what that minister has said — in view of all these fine pronouncements — I would have expected something a little different. I wonder if that is why it is so difficult to get any concrete information from that minister.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I got it by way of letter handed to me on the floor — not across the floor so that it would be recorded in Hansard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Read the letter.

MRS. WALLACE: That's what I'm doing. It's not $8.5 million as last year, but $6.7 million — down! It's very interesting what some of these things are. For example, it talks about interim planning agreement. Now there was no interim planning in 1975-1976, and in 1976-1977 there was no interim planning. All there was was a commitment, but no actual spending. In 1975-1976, northern British Columbia transportation highways: $5 million; in 1976-1977 — very interesting — nothing, Mr. Chairman. These are the figures provided to me by that minister's ministry as of February 14. Yet that minister stands in his place and tells us how great an improvement there is in the moneys that he is getting from the federal government.

There's another very interesting item here. Regional Development Incentives Act: in 1975-1976 — $100,000. Then it says: "There was $1.5 million

[ Page 967 ]

offered, but the project was not started." I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's record is lacking a great deal in living up to the commitments he made to this House last year when he stood in his place and told us of how he was not going to go hat in hand he was going to get some real benefits under the DREE programme. I raised this earlier and I have not had an answer. I now have a written answer from the department and I felt that I must put this into the record.

The Premier talked about the amount per capita that we got in B.C. as being so much lower when the former administration was in. Now, I don't have per capita figures for this year. But it's interesting to note that it's still holding true. There's no change there either because here I have a release from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Manitoba. In February of this year, they announced a $10.2 million programme under DREE, specifically just in one section under the ARDA programme in DREE.

MR. LOEWEN: Churchill Forest Products?

MRS. WALLACE: So there we have the figures — as I say, I don't have the per capita figures — that show that that trend is not changing. In fact, it's probably worsening by those sorts of figures.

Mr. Chairman, another point that I raised in the initial stages, and the minister promised to look into and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised it again today, is the case of Mr. Christian and the Cedar Products. We still have no answer from that minister as to whether or not he is going to be able to help that handicapped man to continue his little cottage-type industry there, to continue to employ other handicapped people, to keep those people off the social assistance roles and to keep them in the mainstream of society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, he does have this question, I'm sure, because while I was chairman of the committee I've heard this question asked on a couple of occasions. I'm sure he has the question.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I would like to have the answer, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind all hon. members that we can only ask questions. We cannot insist on answers. I think that we have done our part when we've asked the question.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We have tried to do our part but we really cannot do the business of the people of this province if we don't get any answers. This is why this debate is continuing. There has been an attempt by the government benches to indicate that the opposition is dragging their feet and wasting time. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the opposition. We are duty-bound on behalf of the people of this province to get some answers.

The minister has continuously refused to answer the questions and that is why this debate is becoming so prolonged and why the Chairman is calling us to order for repetition. I would suggest to the minister that he could do a great service to the people of British Columbia if he did provide some answers. I must say that I have noted a remarkable improvement today. He has been answering some questions. Therefore I dare to suggest that perhaps I might have an answer to Mr. Christian's problem.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With regard to Mr. Christian's problem, it's under review at the present time. With regard to DREE, when you asked specific, detailed questions on that I thought it would be better if we supplied you with the information. That's why it was hand-delivered to your office today. You'll note — and I'm not going to get into an argument with you on figures — that some of the difference between 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 is $5 million in British Columbia transportation. There will be an additional $5 million this year, which will bring the total up when we're finished to $13.7 million.

With regard to the $100,000 in the ARDA, that money is offered but it has to be taken up by industry; the government really has nothing to do with it. It's an incentive out of Ottawa.

MRS. WALLACE: Further to the minister's remarks that this is really not $5 million, but it's going to be more, the accompanying letter says: "Please note these are commitments and not actual expenditures since the details on the 1976-1977 on an expenditure basis will not be available for some time."

I understood that on this list that I have these were estimates of the total commitments, rather than actual expenditures.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the member would read footnote No. 2, with regard to the northern transportation, there is another agreement being negotiated with Ottawa which will probably be another $5 million.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. It's a bit confusing when the letter says one thing and the footnote indicates something else. Again, I'm sorry the Premier isn't in the House, but I really feel that the Premier was a bit unfair when he indicated that there had been no constructive criticism from this side of the House. In my own instance, I had mentioned the Mid-Island Development Corporation

[ Page 968 ]

and commended that to the minister as one means of assisting economic development in this province. The second member for Victoria had gone to some great length into the same type of thing. I mentioned the Terrace situation, where the same thing was developing and commended that to the minister's attention. I think there has been a great deal of constructive criticism offered from this side of the House, had the minister and the Premier cared to listen.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I also feel that the Premier was unfair in his statements earlier today when he suggested that there were no constructive suggestions coming from this side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, we have just heard that particular notation. Perhaps you would like to remind the Premier of that under his estimates.

MR. SKELLY: I'll have to agree with that, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This is vote 79.

MR. SKELLY: I think that people in Alberni will welcome the minister's announcement that there will be a full inventory and investigation into the problems experienced by ski developments throughout British Columbia, again as the result of the representations made by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). I'm grateful that the minister has responded to those constructive suggestions and he has agreed to do a complete inventory. There's been no promise of assistance but, again, in this case, Mr. Chairman, what we're experiencing is basically an act of God, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan stated.

With the problem of the tourist industry on Vancouver Island, we're dealing with an act of government that's created problems within the industry. I would suggest to the minister that he get in touch with the minister responsible for travel industry and do a complete analysis of the problems being experienced by people in the tourist industry on Vancouver Island, Mr. Chairman. f the minister is willing to do inventory and look into the problems associated with ski developments, which are more appropriately the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, surely if he would do an inventory of the problems being experienced in the travel industry on Vancouver Island, where the problems that we face are equally serious.... Possibly the minister is not listening right now or he is not concerned, but I would ask the minister if he is willing, in the same spirit that he agreed to look into the problems associated with the ski industry in British Columbia, to look into the problems in the tourist industry, particularly on Vancouver Island. Now he said he'd consider every case on its merits in the case of the travel industry but not in the case of ski developments and I would wonder if the minister would be willing to do a study of the tourist industry as a whole on Vancouver Island and to look into their very deep-seated problems as a result of transportation rate changes, et cetera.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I did bring up the business of the B.C. Rail plant. There's another aspect to this which I failed to bring to the attention of the minister, and that is that the contract that I was referring to on which B.C. Rail was given only from January 5 to January 17 to prepare a bid for 2,000 cars was not being made by CP or by CN Railway. The owner of these cars, or the person putting out the bid, was a federal government department. The Ministry of Transport is to own these and have them operated by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, because, no doubt, they realize that the shortage of boxcars at certain times can cause serious economic problems, as we know. It happened here.

So here we have a Crown corporation for which the minister is responsible, and the minister has not seen fit to give us his feelings, the response, the action that he took in this regard when the Ministry of Transport treated British Columbia in a most cavalier manner. And if ever there was a case in recent months when we had a right to be aggrieved and and to be outraged, this was surely it. I would wonder if the minister did take any action, if he picked up the phone, whether or not he talked to his counterpart in Ottawa or to the minister responsible for the Ministry of Transport, and what action he took in this matter.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've already answered this in this House once. But instead of referring the member to the Blues — to Hansard — I'll answer it again. Yes, I did take immediate action. I wired the Minister of Transport in Ottawa and I wired the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa. As I stated, we came to the realization after a debate with Ottawa that we just couldn't compete on the situation. I gave a lengthy answer about that in the House before.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would also like to express my appreciation on behalf of the ski society in the Comox area with respect to the announcement made by the minister tonight that he will, in fact, look into each of the ski societies in the province concerning the financial difficulties that they are having. But I was rather surprised, Mr. Chairman. I have spent a good deal of my time today in communication with the Department of

[ Page 969 ]

Recreation and Conservation because of a phone call that I received this morning from the Mt. Becher Ski Society in the Courtenay area. They gave me no indication whatsoever that the Minister of Economic Development might be looking into these problems.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister has made this decision on his own this evening and whether he has in fact talked with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf). As I say, his department has been involved all day with this as far as the society in my own area is concerned. I'm wondering what kind of communication has taken place between the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

In any case, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the minister to act with all haste because the Mt. Becher Ski Society has been attempting to get funding through the federal government in order to carry them through this very difficult financial time that they're having and have turned to the provincial government to give them some interim help. This help has to come very, very quickly if, in fact, they are going to meet the commitments that they are facing today, yesterday and tomorrow. It's that urgent as far as that particular ski development society is concerned.

The other point that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, relates to questions that I have raised at least twice in the Legislature relating to the Bear Cove development at Port Hardy. I've had further communication today from the mayor of Port Hardy and have a copy of a letter which has gone to the B.C. Development Corporation. I had hoped that the minister today would get on his feet and apologize for the erroneous information that he gave in the House the other night and would, in fact, point out to the House that there is a lack of communication, there is some difficulty here, and that he personally would accept the invitation of the mayor and the council to visit Port Hardy in order to discuss the industrial development at Bear Cove in Port Hardy.

But the mayor, in a copy of a letter which I received today going to the B.C. Development Corporation, says the following:

"In the meantime, please appoint a planner and an engineer now so that we can get started with the ramp, hydro and road this spring. B.C. needs the industry and jobs."

All I can say to that is amen, but he also says, in closing:

"I am not aware of the programme you have for Bear Cove, as indicated by the Hon. D. Phillips in the Legislature on February 10. Further, I am not aware that Port Hardy is to be supplying plans for roads, sewer and water services to the cove."

So there again the mayor, writing on behalf of his council, is completely unaware of the statements made by the minister the other night in the House, saying that council had agreed with the programme and that the B.C. Development Corporation was only awaiting some information from the council with respect to road development plans and development plans for services.

I'm sorry that the minister didn't think to apologize to the House today, and I hope that he will be willing to do that now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get embroiled in a political debate between the member and the district of Port Hardy and the British Columbia Development Corporation. I'm satisfied the matter is under control; we'll leave it at that.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister may think that things are in hand as far as Port Hardy is concerned, but the council up there obviously doesn't feel that. You indicated the other night that they were very happy with the plans that were being developed there. Mr. Minister, I think that's an answer which the council is not prepared to accept, and I certainly am not prepared to accept it. The statements you made the other night were completely misleading.

The other aspect related to the Mt. Becher Ski Development Society. I'm wondering — and I asked that specifically, Mr. Minister — whether or not this decision was made by yourself tonight on the floor of the House or whether communication had taken place with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf), who's been working all day, or at least his department has, on behalf of the ski development society in the Courtenay area.

Further, Mr. Chairman, I do hope the minister will respond to the questions raised by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), because the tourist industry within my riding is suffering the same fate, based on the policies and the decisions of this government, as is being experienced by the member for Alberni. I hope the minister will give a better answer than that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, when I said we would do an inventory of ski resorts, I meant exactly that. I wasn't talking about ski societies or the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act. I'm talking about ski resorts that are presently in operation and who are suffering this winter. I'm not talking about ski associations who are trying to get facilities, and I hope the member distinguishes between the two.

MS. SANFORD: Again the minister responded to only one of the three questions I posed to him. But

[ Page 970 ]

to follow up on the ski resorts, that's quite a different matter. I can assure you that the ski development society in the Courtenay area is not at this time hoping to put in new equipment or try to expand their facilities. Mr. Chairman, that ski development society is in deep financial trouble just trying to meet its commitments.

They have bills all over the Courtenay area; they feel particularly badly about not being able to meet those bills at the moment. There are some $22,000 outstanding to the small businessmen of the Courtenay area. They also have two permanent staff people that they must pay. Those people are not going to be able to pay unless they get some immediate assistance from the provincial government — at least a guarantee for the loan that they would like to take out at the bank.

In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, they have applied to the federal government, but because it's going to take two or three months in order to obtain that funding, they have contacted me in the meantime. I have been in contact with the Department of Recreation and Conservation, and that's why I was so surprised tonight when the Minister of Economic Development talked about helping the ski resorts.

But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the Minister of Economic Development would exclude ski societies that are at least in as much financial difficulty as some of the ski resorts are concerned, the privately operated and privately owned ski facilities. These people are not expanding this year; they are simply trying to meet the same financial problems faced by the other ski areas. I hope the minister will reconsider and also include the ski societies who are suffering equally with the rest of the ski development projects in the province.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, as the member who first brought up the matter of the difficulty of ski resorts and non-profit ski societies, I would like the minister to take note of the fact that.... Perhaps while the minister is out of the House, the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who both are charged with some responsibility in this area, would listen to my remarks because the non-profit ski societies are also part of the economic development, the economic resource and the tourist industry of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with great respect, I think this subject has been well canvassed.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I brought up this subject originally. It is obviously not well canvassed because I have some new remarks to make that have not been made to this point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The fact, hon. member....

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to take the example of Kimberley, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The fact that you have just drawn to the attention of the House that you did bring it up before already tells the House that it has been canvassed. Therefore, I would suggest that the member perhaps broach a new subject.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to broach the subject of Pacific Western Airlines, a subject that hasn't been mentioned during this debate before. Pacific Western Airlines advertises ski packages as part of the policy of creating a viable air transportation system in this province, which is very vital to the economic development of this province. Pacific Western Airlines advertises a ski package in the Kootenay area and also in the Okanagan area. They advertise skiing the hill in Kimberley. My good friend and colleague from Kootenay riding (Mr. Haddad) would be very familiar with this. He would realize, Mr. Chairman, that one of the hills that is advertised is owned by a private resort operation, and that is at Fairmont Hot Springs. One of the others advertised is Kimberley; and it's owned by a non-profit organization.

But the spinoff, which I don't think has been brought out — and I think the minister is interested in this — is that whether it is private or non-profit, there are ancillary benefits to retail sales, motels, service station operators, suppliers and others. The non-profit ski hills are also a very important part of the economic resource of this province. So I would hope that the minister, when this inventory is taken....

As the member who first brought this up.... I brought this up not in this debate, Mr. Chairman, but under the somewhat restricted rules of the budget debate where we weren't in committee, where we couldn't get information or feedback immediately. That is when I brought it up, not during this estimate. Things have changed since then, and a new light is shed upon this because the minister has announced his willingness to undertake an inventory.

I would urge that within the terms of reference of that inventory an assessment be made on all of the ski hills in the province. The list can be obtained from the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). They have to license all the lifts in the province. They have complete up-to-date information. They have pretty good up-to-date information in the Department of Travel Industry. This is part of’ the recommendation that I made over three weeks ago. I am pleased to see that it is being acted upon in some measure.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that I appreciate the

[ Page 971 ]

fact that the minister did answer the question on B.C. Rail, which apparently he had answered earlier in the House. I thank the minister for his cooperation in so doing, because I'm much relieved to know that some action was taken. I think it was an outrage. Whether they could compete at that particular time or not, the manner in which it was presented to them was outrageous. I think we should do something about that.

Mr. Chairman, concerning the northeast coal agreement, I was asking earlier what estimates there would be in terms of work. I'm given to believe that the Ministry of Economic Development is assuming a figure of 330 workers per million metric tons of clean coal. Upon that premise, I suppose that they are planning the infrastructure, they're planning the townsite, they're planning many other costs which will eventually be borne by other government departments. I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister in other operations they consider 330 workers per million metric tons of clean coal to be a rather high estimate. Utah's Carbon Creek project and Crows Nest Industries' line project expect 301 and 290 employees per million metric tons of clean coal. The Kaiser Hasmer-Wheeler mine estimates 200; the estimates by Denison are 236. The experience of Kaiser, which I assume would be a fairly similar operation, has been that they started with 302 workers per million metric tons of clean coal, and they have been able to reduce it to 262 per million. The point of this is that the department appears to be going on wrong figures.

I would like to ask the, minister: is the department assuming 330? Is my information correct? If it is correct, in what way does it differ from Utah, Crows Nest and others? Does it not, in fact, Mr. Chairman, differ from the estimates that the mining companies have actually submitted to the minister? Is the department's estimate not, in fact, higher than the various component mining industries that are planning to be active in that area?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sure the member realizes that each mine has its own specifications. It depends on the quality of coal and the method of getting it out. It depends on whether it is an underground mine or a surface mine. You mentioned Kaiser. Once a mine is actually operating, less people are involved. But we are studying the specifications of each individual mine.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I also would have liked to have heard the minister expound upon the economic strategy for the province because we are given to believe that there is some economic strategy, that the announcement of the Premier yesterday in terms of the DREE agreement and the ARDA agreement are part of that unfolding.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

What are the other aspects of it? We find that from certain sources we see the inclusion of those two components. It leads me to believe that the sources which I have are somewhat correct.

1 would like to ask the minister if his specific policy initiatives appropriate to their strategy do not include strategies such as Bill 22, which I would quote: "Strikes, and work stoppages have had serious implications for the economy, particularly in terms of affecting the attractiveness of British Columbia as a place to invest. The government's recent enactment of Bill 22, legislation to prohibit strikes on the BCR for four years, is a step toward reducing province-wide economic costs of such labour unrest."

Mr. Chairman, that was part of the strategy when Bill 22 was operative. I am quite aware that, that bill was sort of allowed to die on the order paper, but does that strategy still hold true? Is that still the closet strategy?

I understand, too, that in terms of their economic strategy PREP is to play a role in restoring initiatives for individuals to secure and hold work, and to accept opportunities in areas where known shortages exist. If they do not, they will not be eligible for provincial social assistance moneys. I would like to know if that strategy is still operative.

These are two parts of appendix 2 of a confidential report from which I am quoting. The third part is auto insurance and ferry rates — also to encourage economic development. Part of the strategy on auto insurance and ferry rates suggests the need for "a rationalized system of public sector pricing more along the lines of user charges. Such a system creates incentives for individuals to recognize the resource costs associated with their use of the service and ultimately contribute toward advancement of the real incomes in the province." Is that third part of appendix 2 — your confidential strategy — still operative? Do you still believe in this day and age that the user-pay strategy for auto insurance and ferry rates is the way?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): The answer is yes.

MR. NICOLSON: "The answer is yes," says the Minister of Mines.

The next point I would like to ask in terms of the confidential strategy of the Minister of Economic Development: appendix 2, part (d), the Anti-Inflation Measures Act — is it still operative? The question arises out of our concern for real incomes in British Columbia, one of the broad economic objectives, and is directed at the general problem of inflation. Is the whole-hearted support of the Anti-Inflation Measures Act still operative as part (d) of your confidential

[ Page 972 ]

strategy?

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask this minister if part E is still operative. That is that they also cover trade development, trade missions, et cetera. What about the Operation Access — that is, seminars with B.C. businessmen on how to get federal contracts — Bill C-61, shipping, exparte 318, U.S. freight rates, export levies? Are these also a part of your broad strategy?

I would wonder if the provincial initiatives under consideration remain: The Fairbanks corridor pipeline. The pipeline would run along the Alaska Highway and would produce considerable benefits to B.C. in the form of employment incomes and revenues. It says: "If analysis shows such a profit to generate net benefits for the province, it would contribute toward income, employment and regional balance objectives."

Finally, Mr. Chairman, just to show that some parts of these things are operative on the northeast coal, it calls for coal development projects in the northeast region of the province. It would augment employment directly — "some 2,000 jobs with a further 1,000 being provided over the construction period. Other benefits would accrue in terms of incomes, tax revenues and the provision of economic benefits to one of the northern interior regions." Is that still the operative phrase? Is the objective still the provision of 2,000 jobs?

On Hat Creek coal, is the objective that the government is co-ordinating activities to examine the possibilities of doing Hat Creek both as a source of thermal electric power and for an industrial complex, gasification, and utilization of alumina from fly ash? "Direct employment expected to be 2,000 depending on the uses of coal."

Is it still the operative phrase to proceed with the research park? "The government is considering the establishment of a research park on the endowment lands." In view of recent hearings which took place over there in the absence of the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), is it still the intention to go ahead with that "as a positive step toward diversification of the manufacturing base based on new technology and stability."?

Mr. Chairman, these are many of the other things that the members of the opposition would like to know about in terms of the philosophy, the intentions and the programmes of this government and this minister.

What about the strategy on mobile homes? We talked a little bit earlier this day about Atco Industries. It says: "The Audain commission's recommendations could increase construction activity by 25 per cent in line with the emphasis and strategy on export development and greater economic stability through greater downstream manufacturing." What are the projections in terms of manufacturing through that department?

And what sub agreements are being negotiated? Is it true that the province is negotiating a series of sub agreements with DREE? "These agreements would be totally consistent with the economic development strategy and would enable B.C. to tap 50-per-cent dollars for functions that the province would normally have to undertake itself." The sub agreements relate to the northeast coal development, industrial land development, industrial incentives, upgrading of northern roads, community infrastructure, and Pacific Rim National Park, and support for forest industries in the Houston area. What is taking place and what activities are going on in this area? I think these are a few of the things; the members of this House would be interested in hearing some further details from that minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I hate to inform the member that his leak is a little behind times because we are now on volume 2 of the economic strategy. It's a very flexible strategy.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, table volume 2.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There are some new objectives in there.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions I want to ask the minister before I get on to making my speech. I am kind of curious about his special adviser — if the minister has his estimate book in front of him — who went from $26,000 to $29,000. I'd like to know who he's paying $29,000 a year to give him all the bad advice he's got. He's really getting some pretty awful advice, and at that price I would really have to question whether the taxpayers are getting value for the money that is being paid out. So maybe he could tell us who that special adviser is and whether he's going to keep that special.... I know it's not the deputy minister, because he couldn't possibly be giving him the advice that he's operating on.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Name names!

MS. BROWN: The other thing I notice is that he has got an executive assistant this year whom he's paying $19,500. Now, I know that last year Mr. Weeks was his executive assistant, and I notice he didn't pay him anything. I think that's about what he was worth, actually. I would like to know who the next executive assistant is who is worth $19,500 more than Mr. Weeks was worth. That's two questions.

MR. WALLACE: Nothing weak about that.

[ Page 973 ]

MS. BROWN:Yes, nothing weak about that.

You know, Mr. Chairman, yesterday when everybody was debating that the minister should be paid $1 for the lousy job he's doing as the minister, I, out of compassion, suggested that he should actually be paid $160 a month, which is what he would get if he were on welfare, which is really where he should be when one looks at the way he's running his department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we covered the amendment yesterday, and I believe you are entering into a bit of frivolous debate at this point in time.

MS. BROWN: No, no. This is a very serious issue, because I raised a number of questions. When I suggested that he should be paid $160 I also raised a number of questions, and the minister did not get an opportunity to answer those questions at the time. I'm wondering whether he is prepared to answer those questions now.

The first question I raised was about the 53,000 women....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you asked the question and, in so doing, you played your part. The minister will answer the questions if he so desires. By your own admission, this is repetition, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I know that all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players, but this is a very serious business with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have asked the question.

MS. BROWN: The minister has not responded. I am now giving the minister another opportunity to explain to me what his department has been doing in terms of creating employment for the 53,000 women in this province who are seeking employment — the 12.9 per cent of the work force, which constitutes 53,000 women, who are seeking employment. I'm not playing a part — I'm asking a serious question.

Now, I know that the minister has a special division in his ministry that is to deal with the business of creating employment for women. I am asking him what that division has done. I know there have been studies conducted, and maybe we could have some results from those studies.

MR. WALLACE: Affirmative action.

MS. BROWN: Right. Maybe he could reveal to us, as the member for Nelson-Creston said, some of his closet strategy in terms of getting those women back to work.

I have additional information, which is that the percentage of women seeking employment in the minister's own riding is higher than the national average. Now, I know that this is a matter of very grave concern to the minister, and I'm hoping that he will grasp this opportunity to tell us what he is doing about that. In my own riding, when I phoned the Department of Manpower they informed me that 33.3 per cent of the people who were registered as looking for work in the Vancouver area were women.

Now, I notice the minister is conferring with his deputy, and that's a very good sign because I know the deputy knows what's going on in the department even if the minister doesn't. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will permit the minister to answer the three questions which I am putting to him at this point. Who is his special adviser who, at $29,000, is giving him all the lousy advice he is being given? Who is his executive assistant who is worth $19,500 more than Mr. Weeks was? And what is he doing about the 53,000 women in this province who are looking for work?

MR. WALLACE: Name names!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 79 pass?

MS. BROWN: No, no! The minister is going to answer. Don't rush him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I know the member is not being frivolous when she asks about the estimates and the special adviser. She knows that I do not at the present time have either a special adviser or an administrative assistant. Both positions ore open. Hopefully they will be filled in the very near future. These are estimates of expenditures for the following year.

With regard to women's rights, you know we've increased the staff in the women's rights branch. They're doing studies specifically now in the branch. We have a co-ordinator, as you know, Miss Eileen Caner, and four other permanent staff: an Economist 2, a Research Officer 3, a Clerk and a clerk-stenographer. One consultant is also on staff, dealing specifically with matters concerning the northeast coal development.

The branch is currently heavily involved in both labour and community resource studies being undertaken with respect to the northeast coal. In addition, the branch, in conjunction with the small business branch in Vancouver, has also been very active in holding business workshops in various areas of the province, designed specifically for business women or those women desiring to enter the business field. Six workshops have been held this last year.

MS. BROWN: I knew about the workshops because I do keep my eye on what's going on in your department, Mr. Minister. I'm asking about the

[ Page 974 ]

creation of employment for these 53,000 women who are presently seeking employment. Maybe you could speak to your deputy again....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Well, it's gone up. It was 43,000 people in January, 1976. It's up to 53,000 women in January of 1977. What are you doing, Mr. Minister? The percentage in your own riding.... The women in the north — I know there's a study being conducted — are also looking for employment and there isn't employment there. What are you actually doing in terms of creating not studies but employment?

MR. WALLACE: He's getting the economy rolling, didn't you know?

MS. BROWN: While he's thinking about a response.... Would you like to recognize me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard with some new, relevant information.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much. Yes, I have some very new and very relevant information that is really just as tragic as the information I gave him before which is, namely, the 13 per cent increase in bankruptcies in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard and in Vancouver. The small businesses are going belly-up. What is the hon. Minister of Economic Development doing about the small business interests? The tourist industry went belly-up last summer. Surely part of the blame must lie with the terrible weather which the Social Credit government has visited on this province. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: You're being blamed for everything.

MS. BROWN: But aside from the terrible weather, the increase in the sales tax has taken its toll on the small business interest. What is the hon. minister going to do about that, please?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in 1973, there were 9,412 new companies incorporated in British Columbia. In 1974 there were 9,766, an increase of 3.7 per cent. In 1975 there were 10,267 new companies incorporated in British Columbia, an increase of 5.1 per cent, 1975 over 1974. In 1976 there were a whopping 12,355 new companies incorporated in British Columbia, a change of 20.3 per cent, 1976 over 1975. In 1974, there were 540 registrations of extraprovincial companies registered in British Columbia, down from 573 in the year 1973 — a decrease of 5.8 per cent. In 1975, there were 544 extraprovincial companies registered in British Columbia, an increase of 0.7 per cent. In 1976 there were 657 extraprovincial companies registered in the province — an increase over 1975 of 20.8 per cent.

MS. BROWN: The minister has been giving us some statistics for which I am deeply grateful. I wonder if he would like to please give me the statistics for the number of bankruptcies for 1976 and 1977.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that figure handy at the present time. But I'm sure the number of bankruptcies in 1976 resulting from the rule of the socialists in 1975 would be very high.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Minister of Economic Development, the increase in bankruptcies between 1976 and 1977 was 13 per cent. Would you like to make a note of that, please? Thank you.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): We've been seven days now, I believe, on the debate of the minister. The reason we're still standing here, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister, is that after seven days we're no further ahead. He's in charge of economic development for this province which basically means whatever he does in his department should affect the employment situation in the province. At the moment, unemployment rates, day by day, are going higher and higher. There are thousands of people in this province out of work, and for seven days we haven't heard one specific, concrete suggestion from that minister that can give any hope.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Minister, if you say it's not fair, I'm willing to sit down so you can tell us and the thousands of unemployed where the jobs are for them. I'll be ready to take my seat and await that answer.

While you are prepared to answer, I hope that at the same time you will be prepared to repudiate a statement which was made by one of your cabinet colleagues just a few days ago in the Okanagan. The cabinet colleague I'm referring to is the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who, when asked by a group of students who are unemployed what your government could do, what her plans were, what her government's plans were for work for the young, unemployed students, replied: "Go out and create your own jobs." That is a condemnation, if I ever heard one, of the philosophy of your government. "Go out and create your own jobs." I think it's about

[ Page 975 ]

time, Mr. Minister, that you stood up and repudiated that philosophy, which I hope you don't adhere to, and told us what you are going to do for the unemployed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member has been in the House at some time during the last seven days. We've talked about many of the programmes that we have going. I'm not going to go back over it again, but we've also talked about the jobs that were created last year.

The member also stated that there were a number of questions asked in the Legislature that hadn't been answered. There was a list of some 35 questions spieled off by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on Friday, and I took the time this morning from my busy schedule to go over them. I found that almost 30 of those questions had previously been answered in the Legislature. So I would suggest that the member go back over Hansard. I know she's busy outside the House.

With regard to a statement made by a colleague of mine, you know that you should bring that up under her estimates.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, for the first time, I think, since this started, the minister has been dealing with questions this evening. It's all very well to say that members should have been here all the time, but at least this evening he is trying to deal with questions as they come up. Had we had that kind of response from the minister earlier, then people would have been more encouraged to sit here during the whole of the debate. But I think that to criticize the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) for not having spent time in the House is the worst example the minister could have chosen. I don't think there is a member who spends more time in the House than that member, not when it's been worth her while in the last seven days, perhaps. Nevertheless, she has been here.

There are a couple of things that I would like to ask about that have been asked about. I don't think the minister has commented on these, although I can certainly say that I have not been here for the whole of the seven days and seven nights. One of them was with respect to the Duke Point development that was talked about by the hon. Provincial Secretary in Nanaimo at a chamber of commerce meeting over a year ago. I wonder if that minister has anything at all to tell us.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be satisfied even if he says he has nothing to tell us, that nothing is happening. Just let us know what the situation is. He's doing that this evening. Where he doesn't have any information he's telling us he doesn't have it. Had he responded in that way earlier to questions like this, then I think his vote would have been through much earlier.

The other one I would like to ask him about.... Perhaps in this instance, although he has spoken about it this evening, he hasn't really answered the questions at all — that is, the questions about his own participation in the Oakland Industries negotiations. He has referred to it, and he said it's up to the FBDB to do whatever has to be done. He has not said whether he, as Minister of Economic Development for the province of British Columbia, has actually done anything other than sit in on the negotiations; to the best of my knowledge he hasn't. We would like to know whether or not the provincial government, through the Minister of Economic Development, has contributed anything to those discussions. If it's something that he shouldn't talk about in the interest of the negotiations, then tell us that and we'll accept that. But at least say something other than that we're waiting for the FBDB to solve the problem for us.

Those are the two points, Mr. Chairman. I promise that if I can get any kind of an answer to those two, I'll walk out and leave it to the rest.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the latest on Duke Point, we are now negotiating with MacMillan Bloedel. We're awaiting appraisals prior to confirming the sale price for an option agreement, so it is....

MR. STUPICH: Can you tell me when was the last contact between your department...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Last week.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With regard to Oakland Industries, actually you can criticize me if you like, but I was the mediator. I brought the parties together and they're in negotiation. There is a firm proposal in now. We hope to save the herring season. The latest information I have is that we'll know on Friday if the proposal by the owners is going to be accepted by the federal development corporation. It looks like it's going to be accepted. They are making an arrangement to rent the building and carry on. It's not going to solve the problem, but it'll certainly save those 300 workers and the fishing fleet and so forth.

So we'll get through the herring season and then there'll have to be ongoing negotiations. Then we'll find out whether the Development Corporation is going to enter into it or not.

MR. STUPICH: Has the provincial government offered to assist in guaranteeing or lending any money, or was our role simply as a mediator? If that's the case, well, that's all I want to know.

[ Page 976 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I said our present role was as a mediator. We didn't have time, because, as you know, you can't wave a magic wand. If you're going to loan money from the Development Corporation, you know it has to go through the board. But we have brought them together. We've been monitoring it and, had it been necessary, we might have had to call a special meeting.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): It's quiet, very quiet. I just have about two or three seconds to ask a couple of questions of the minister. But I must comment on his change of character over the past few years. Incredible! I'm wondering if this is the same fellow who used to stand over here and filibuster in the House for three or four weeks at a time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're on vote 79.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you'll allow a little latitude. This is the first time I've risen on the minister's estimates, and I just wanted to make a few observations. I'm somewhat bewildered by the mild-mannered presence of the minister. After all, I sat over on this side of the House, when we were the government, in the back bench. I recall watching that member attack our government about bringing in things like the Land Commission. We were bringing in a few other social programmes, and he ranted and raved and screamed and said that we were taking away all of the democratic rights of the citizens and so forth. It's amazing how he's sitting over there so polite and so reasonable and understanding.

MR. WALLACE: He's the power behind the throne.

MR. BARNES: I'm just wondering if he was playing a game when he was over here. What happened to that mean temper? I hope that he will carry on, because he's setting a very fine example of how people should behave in this House and not get excited. Just remain calm at all times, no matter what happens. In fact, remain mum. Don't say anything either.

The member from our party who normally raises the criticisms of that ministry is not here. I'm wondering if the minister would like to surprise him so that when he returns, he's answered all those questions that were left unanswered. I know that this is a good mood this evening — everybody's relaxed and the minister is probably having one of those rare days when he himself doesn't understand why he's so polite and cooperative.

I must say also that the Premier, when he was in, was suggesting that we have an intelligent debate and that people participate responsibly. The only thing wrong with that suggestion is that we need information in order to participate. It seems to me that this minister has forgotten that in order for us to participate, we'll have to have documents that he's referred to. At one time he was referring to a document that he was asked to table in order that we might peruse it, and he said: "Well, maybe I'd better refer to something else because I'm not prepared to table that document." We've been asking for documents and information all through the whole debate.

We've been asking you to indicate to us that you are really concerned about the economy of the province, Mr. Minister. I'm thinking that you have the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), you have the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) who are particularly related to your department when it comes to the programmes that they have been announcing. Could you assure the House that these announcements are never made without consultation with you and your staff?

I note in your estimates that you have a large number of research people, of experts, economists and so forth who are fully trained and qualified to give advice as to the trends in the province, as to the weaknesses and areas which we should be careful about before we bring in any kind of drastic changes that would affect the economy.

Would you stand up and indicate to the House what planning was involved with your department before the ferry rates were raised? Tell us what the projected impact was expected to be on the economy, particularly in the islands, and what consultation you had with the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) respecting the effects on theSun shine Coast and other communities that as you know now, are in dire straits for the lack of transportation services. Give us some indication about your consultation with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) before he proceeded to raise the social service tax.

All of these are things that concern the Minister of Economic Development. If they don't then I don't know what the scope of your office is.

The economy is important. You have said that many times yourself; the Premier has said this. We would like to know what business acumen your cabinet, your colleagues and yourself have brought to the Legislature that did not exist before. I would like you to explain to us what analytical techniques you've been employing in arriving at the decisions you've arrived at that set you aside from other politicians who have suggested ideas to you. Give us some ideas about the results and benefits that you've received from these.

[ Page 977 ]

We know what the negative results have been, but it's our job to point these out to you because in the interest of the public we want to ensure that the best things are happening for British Columbia. You should show us how your policies have improved the unemployment situation and give us a rationale for the 112,000 people who are presently unemployed as opposed to the 80,000 or 90,000 who were unemployed at the time you took office. Because you did convince the people that they should work with Bill. As you know, that was the slogan in the last election: "Work with Bill!" Maybe he meant "work with the bills that B.C. Hydro would send you" or something like that. I don't know if you had in mind working with Premier Bill Bennett, because his Projects are pretty restricted in their....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you could return to the....

MS. BROWN: No, he's on the vote.

MR. BARNES: Yes, I'm speaking directly to it because I'm trying to get some idea about the scope of the minister's department, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I see.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate your trying to ensure that. If you have any constructive comments that you could add, I'd appreciate them. I'll sit down and hear what you've got to say. But you're a fine chairman, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly don't want to inflict upon you any suggestions or aspersions as to your conduct and good intentions. I'm sure you want to see that the operation of this House is in good order.

My questions, I know, are perhaps a little bit irregular. The minister doesn't like, I'm sure, to have rather generalized questions put to him, but I think he could put us all at ease if he were to ensure us that the decisions made by his department reflect the joint views of the cabinet and all of the ministries, and that they have a system within the cabinet and the various departments which, I hope, was part of the reason for the Reorganization Act that was thrust upon this House. I would like to ensure that views have a way of dovetailing and that there is some kind of an overall concept that will move the province toward the benefits that were promised during the last election.

But certainly you must admit, Mr. Chairman, that when you consider the Transport and Communications problems, Human Resources problems, the Health problems, the Department of Finance and its new fiscal policies.... We wonder whether the Minister of Economic Development has had very much to say about these things. I think that that's a fair question, and I hope that you will address yourself to that when I'm taking my seat.

I have one other question I'd like to ask you, but if you'd like I'll sit down first and let you.... Okay. Well, that's fine.

The other question, Mr. Chairman, to the minister is that I would like him to explain to the House the procedures required for applicants for loans through the B.C. Development Corporation. What are the procedures? What does a person do to get a loan, some kind of financing or assistance? What is the procedure to receive a grant? Do you go down to a local office, get a form, fill it out and apply based on...? What kind of criteria, what kind of statistical proof must you show of your need, the viability of your organization and so forth? Could you explain how this works?

While you're at it, Mr. Minister, could you tell the House whether the corporation operates independent of the government and demonstrate by some kind of substantial regulation, if it is available, that this is assured, that the corporation operates independent of the government?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern. I'd like to say yes, the government basically operates as a team. We all work together for the good of the province. You notice that I have stated that I will be bringing in a Statistics Act so that more information will be available to other members of cabinet when they make decisions. This board that will be established under this Act will be a completely independent board sworn to secrecy and so forth. But that's under the Act.

With regard to the procedure for a loan, that's all public information. I'll be happy to send you all the brochures and all the information. We'll put together a package for you and send it over to you, because that's all public information. All the procedures are outlined.

Yes, it's an independent board, but it's still responsible to its main shareholder, which is the government. I am only one of 12 directors on the board, and they make the decisions with regard.... We have a loan board which brings its recommendations in to the executive committee and then they are passed on to the full board. But I am only one of 12 directors, and therefore the loan applications are made on a business basis, not on a political basis.

MR. BARNES: That will do for now. I don't want to have an argument over the procedures as you've pointed them out to me, but I just wanted to get some assurances from you that the board was

[ Page 978 ]

independent of the government and, more specifically, of the cabinet. When you say executive committee, you mean the committee of the B.C. Development Corporation and not of the government.

Could the minister tell the House whether or not there has been an application by a transport company, Widdis Transport of Williams Lake? First of all, do you know of that application?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think I do remember an application from Widdis.

MR. BARNES: Could the minister tell the House the extent of the loan and whether or not it was granted, or just what the status of the application is at the present time?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that information right at my fingertips, but I'd be quite happy to get it for the member.

MR. BARNES: The minister has indicated that he doesn't have all of the details right now, and I am quite willing to accept that, but I am wondering if he will bring the information to the House for our perusal and table those documents at the time they are available.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, if the member wants that information, all the details and so forth, he'll have to get it through the public accounts committee.

MR. NICOLSON: I should think that if that information were available through the public accounts committee, the minister could make it available to the member upon his request.

I would, first of all, like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, about comments that I made earlier today. I'd like the minister to have a very clear idea of the intention of the remarks that I made. Those remarks were with respect to the seconding of a Development Corporation worker to Finning Tractor. Mr. Chairman, whether or not there was actually a seconding, I would also like to say that I hold Mr. Maurey Young, the president of Finning Tractor, in very high esteem. I had the opportunity to have some meetings with him myself when I was Minister of Housing.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I would suggest — the minister, of course, is leaving again — but, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is very important for the protection of people who will stand on Crown corporations, and bring their prestige and bring their reputations to the service of the Crown for little or no remuneration, that they be protected in every way possible from criticism and that there be policies established for Crown corporations. I see that the Premier is here. There should be policies established for Crown corporations, Mr. Chairman, whereby there are conflict-of-interest committees — call them ethics committees, call them what you will — which can consider matters such as this in order to save embarrassment for these people who are giving so much of their time and their expertise. I make that suggestion very seriously, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier perhaps, that he should direct all Crown corporations to establish such a procedure, which is done with interlocking corporations, involving banks and insurance companies and various other corporations, so that such things would not happen.

There should be a policy that no decisions involving a company owned by a director of a corporation — of BCDC, for instance, or whether it be a director of B.C. Rail — no such a person should be.... There should be a policy going right throughout the corporation that decisions would have to be referred, in such an instance, to a board committee. This then would protect those people who do serve and do lend their expertise to Crown corporations. I feel we do need these people, and we need to encourage them to serve in this capacity. They are not best served by a slipshod arrangement at the board level.

I would just repeat those remarks, that I certainly brought that up not to cast any aspersions upon Mr. Maurey Young, whom I hold in high esteem. But I feel, if we're going to ask people like this to serve, that they should be protected. There should be measures taken at the boards of directors to create either ethics committees or conflict-of-interest committees in their interest.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to comment on the strategy of assistance to Bulkley Valley Forest Industries. Certainly they don't need any assistance from the.... You know, Noranda hardly needs assistance from the ministry. But something I would like to bring up is the strategy which says:

"The government is currently giving consideration to modifying its policy with regard to woodchip exports, in particular. The desirability of permitting sawmill operators to undertake long-term commitments for the export of woodchips is being examined. This measure would contribute to the objective of economic stability and greater regional balance by providing markets for woodchips during periods…."

Interjections.

[ Page 979 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, it appears some of the members of the government are getting a little punchy. They're hearing bells. But the measure, it says, "…would contribute to the objective of economic stability and greater regional balance by providing markets for woodchips during periods when they are not in great demand in British Columbia." Yet it is suggesting that there be long-term permits. There are short-term export permits being granted. Then, another part of the strategy was for pulp mill development. Negotiations are currently underway regarding the establishment of a new pulp mill in B.C. If the mill goes ahead, it would contribute to the objective relating to income employment and regional balance.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to tell us how he reconciles these two objectives to a change in policy in terms of export of woodchips, allowing long-term commitments, and how this could possibly lead to the building of a pulp mill. The minister said that these notes are from a strategy that has been replaced by strategy two. I'm glad they've taken it back to the drawing board because there are many questions in here that could be raised. But is it his intention to encourage the long-term export of chips? At the same time, how are the negotiations going toward the construction of a new pulp mill? Should there not be two pulp mills, and where should they be located? Where does the minister propose that they be located in order to fit in with this overall economic strategy for the province?

MS. BROWN: I just have one very short question for the minister, and I'm glad he's back. It has to do with his travel expenses, Mr. Chairman. Where is the Minister of Economic Development going? I notice his travel expenses have gone up from $11,000 to $18,000. I've been comparing that with the travel expenses of everybody else in the government, and nobody else seems to be planning the extensive travel that the Minister of Economic Development is planning. Consumer and Corporate Affairs is making do with $11,000; Labour with $12,500; Municipal Affairs, $12,500; Human Resources, $12,500; Highways, $12,500; Education, $15,000; Recreation, $ 10,000; Forestry, $ 10,000; Mines, $12,500; Energy, $10,000; Environment, $12,000; Agriculture, $11,000. He's asking for $18,000. Where is he going?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's good to see a question on the actual vote and I appreciate the member asking. I just want to say that we've stated in this House before that British Columbia must export if she is to survive, This minister will be doing some travelling in the next year to tell the good word abroad about British Columbia, about the change of policies, seeking investment capital, talking about coal, et cetera. That is why the minister's vote for travel is up.

Vote 79 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 15

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

On vote 80: general administration, $5,501,806.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to know what the minister did to the poor old deputy. I note that the poor deputy's salary has been cut by $1,080 over last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: While we see that minister voting himself increases in travel fees so that he can take junkets around this — we're presumably exporting politicians — we find that he's clipping the wings of the deputy who saved his bacon all the way through the debates on his estimates in this House. Without that deputy minister, Mr. Chairman, that minister would have been demolished six and a half days ago, and I think it's short shrift to compensate and thank that minister by lopping $1,080 off his salary. I want the minister to explain that. If that's not a vote of confidence, then I don't know what is. I think that if Arthur Weeks had received that indication he would have resigned long ago, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to thank the opposition for the tremendous cooperation during the last week and a half. I just want to say that it's

[ Page 980 ]

been nice to do business with you. I hope I don't have to do it for another year. (Laughter.)

Yes, the deputy minister's salary: the deputy minister, despite what may appear in the estimate books, has not had any reduction in his salary. In the fiscal years 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 the estimates showed $44,160. This figure was copied from the estimate printout received from the Ministry of Finance. Presumably it allowed for possible salary adjustments in this year, fiscal 1977-1978. No such higher figure was indicated by Finance so my deputy has decided to state his actual salary at the time. For the record, my deputy's actual salary for the fiscal year 1975-1976 was $43,080 and for the fiscal year 1976-1977 will be $43,080. These figures may be verified by public accounts. I appreciate the member's concern.

MR. KING: Thank you. I'm pleased for the deputy's sake that he hasn't been insulted and hasn't been penalized for his good efforts for that department over the past year. But this brings up an interesting point, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister would like to go through all of these columns of figures in vote 80 and tell us what figure we can accept at face value out of all of those columns of figures. Apparently we can't take at face value the very first figure in the column under vote 80. Apparently the last year's salary shown in the estimates is erroneous and I wonder if the same is true of all of the various salaries noted in the estimates — all of the various programmes, the travel expenses, professional and special services, office expenses, office and furniture equipment. Have similar errors been made in indicating the figure for the fiscal year 1976-1977? Which of those figures are valid and which are not?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that he'll always have the cooperation of the opposition if he can reasonably give a good account of himself in this House. And while I don't mind too much personally doing business with the minister in this House, I'm not sure that the 112,000 people who are unemployed in B.C. tonight have the same sentiments. Nevertheless, I hope the minister can give us some assurance that the last year's figures shown in the estimates for 1976-1977 are all valid. Or are they all erroneous as the first figure that is shown?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to assure the member that all the salaries indicated are based on the figures as of this date, taking into consideration contractual allowances.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, again we find the figure that is inaccurate is being blamed on the computer. I suppose that's the refuge of the government these days when we can't seem to get an accurate accounting of some of these figures. But the minister did say, when I raised the issue on vote 79, that I could have some information in vote 80. We're now at vote 80.

I want to refer to the very inadequate way in which vote 80 spells out in bulk almost the total budget of the whole department. Yet in the annual report, we have what I think is a very commendable document — I presume it was composed by the deputy also — in which the department's various branches are described: the business and industrial development branch, the research and analysis branch, the policy planning branch, women's economic rights branch. But the financing of all of these branches, I assume, is encompassed in vote 80. Although there is an increase of about $800,000 in spending, the opposition hasn't any clue at all as to where the....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That's like debatus interruptus, Mr. Chairman, when the government intervenes on an opposition member when he hasn't quite finished his sentence.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Not when it's interrupts, Mr. Member.

The point I was trying to make when I was so rudely interrupted was that the total increase in vote 80 is spread over various branches of the minister's responsibility. I'd be very interested to know where the emphasis is being placed.

For example, Mr. Chairman, in the annual report there is quite a fair amount of space given to small business assistance under the title of small business assistance division — what the objectives are, the fact that community calls are placed, and that during 1975 a total of 456 calls were carried out in 48 communities — this kind of thing, which is good information. And that's what we would like to know.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give you the breakdown.

MR. WALLACE: In terms of the money that's to be spent in the coming year, are we going to double the emphasis on small business, or is it to be special projects, or is it to be trade and industry, or business and industrial development? What are we supposed to deduce from one block vote of increased spending of $800,000 with no detail whatever?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be most happy to give these figures. If you don't want to write them down, they'll appear in Hansard in the morning. First of all,

[ Page 981 ]

I'll give you — and this is an estimated breakdown — the 1976-77 figures first.

Same figures for 1977-78, which are the estimates we are now talking about:

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a brief moment to say that that's all very well; but for us to try and analyse where the emphasis is going to be this year compared with last, to be given these figures at 20 minutes to 11 o'clock tonight after seven days of debate, I would just suggest is not very reasonable. Could we ask the minister to take under advisement that point of view so that at least next year perhaps in the estimates the figures can be broken up in this manner and we can bring some intelligent appraisal to bear on these figures? There's nothing we can do tonight; the vote's about to be passed. Really, the opposition has had very little opportunity to determine whether in our opinion this is a fair breakdown of how the money should be spent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The point is well taken.

MS. BROWN: I certainly don't blame the minister for not breaking it down. Once we get the breakdown we get an answer to a lot of the questions we've been asking.

When one compares $175,000 for the women's economic rights branch with the $2,402,000 for the policy division and the $793,865 for administration and $1,286,000 and $540,000 for tariffs, then it makes good sense why there are 53,000 women in this province out of work and you haven't been able to do anything about it. If I were you, I wouldn't break it down either because a breakdown certainly reveals your ineptitude, your incompetence and your lack of commitment to that women's economic rights branch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: I am addressing the Chair, through you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's disgraceful and I don't blame the minister for not breaking it down. If I were doing a disgraceful job like this, I wouldn't break it down either. At $175,000, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Travel expenses again: $230,000. You're way out of line with every other ministry when it comes to travel expenses. Forestry is trying to sell our products abroad too; their travel expenses went down. Mining is trying to sell our products abroad; their travel expenses went down. Your personal travel expenses went up by $6,000. The travel expenses for your department went up by $94,000, and the women's economic branch got $175,000. You expect us to vote in support of this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, he prepares a glossy report showing what great things he's doing for women in this province. The statistics show the increase in the unemployment among women. He stands up and makes pious statements, and it's not until we get a breakdown that we find out that that minister really doesn't mean what he's talking about. We're not going to vote in support of this.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the member's concern.

MS. BROWN: Concern!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But I do want to tell the member that information services is not strictly for the male population. Business and industrial development is not strictly for the male population. Policy and planning is not strictly for the male population. We share 50-50; we don't discriminate.

I think that she should be happy that we do have a functioning women's rights branch. As I say, all of the other divisions in the department are not discriminating for males only. We work for the general population of the province. The member knows that.

MS. BROWN: I think he should withdraw the word "functioning." It is not functioning. Why do you establish, why do you permit the existence of something known as a women's economics branch in your department when you obviously have no commitment to it? It's not functioning, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask you again, for the third time, to please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Through you, to the minister, it is not functioning. There is no commitment to this division in the department. I think that it's a farce — this glossy brochure that's circulated all over the

[ Page 982 ]

place with all these pious statements. We find that it doesn't balance with the reality, that in fact the increase in unemployment among women is even more rapid than it is among men. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, we find out why! For all we know the $175,000 is spent to print that glossy brochure and write those pious statements. Don't call it a functioning branch, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the minister, because it certainly is not functioning. It's a farce. We should have a division on that farce!

Vote 80 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 15

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

On vote 81: grants, $ 1,100,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, at a time when we're talking so frequently about the need to develop overseas markets, I'm just puzzled that in vote 81 the cooperative overseas market development programme has a reduction in its budget from $900,000 to $740,000. Now, I'm not quite clear on what the function of this development programme is, but it seems to be completely at odds with what we're supposed to be doing as a province to develop overseas markets. Should we not be spending more instead of less trying to develop these markets?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is a continuation of a five-year programme. There's really no reduction in the vote. It's just that it was prepaid out of last year's funds.

MR. WALLACE: If it's a five-year programme, why are we finishing after five years? The need for overseas programmes is greater than ever. Are we not sustaining with some other programme in place of this one that's expiring?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The programme continues through this year and we will hopefully be — this in cooperation with Ottawa — going on to a bigger and better programme.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask whether the minister had considered under vote 81, provincial exhibits, British Columbia Building.... I appreciate that those grants do not apply to the loggers' sports days throughout the province. I believe that they have functioned in the past, and do on the current basis, under grants from the Provincial Secretary's department.

My point is that the loggers' sports days, I think, are a meaningful exercise in terms of allowing the public of British Columbia to appreciate the skills of the forest industry and the new technology in the forest industry. It's pretty basic to our whole economy, as everyone knows, and it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would be more appropriate to fund that kind of activity either under this department or under Forests.

One of the problems at the moment is that the interior loggers' sports days, particularly, have no firm budget on a continuing basis. They are left to operate hand-by-mouth on the basis of how much money they can raise in the community. I just happen to think that something as basic as the forest industry.... The considerable interest that has grown around the competitions of log climbing, bucking, and so on is something that should be encouraged in a more obvious way in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I inquire as to whether this ought not better to be discussed under the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf)?

MR. KING: No, Mr. Chairman. My point is that I think it should reside under this vote. I think provision is here to fund that kind of activity. My question is whether or not the minister is giving consideration to that. It does relate to promoting industry. It does relate to promoting the tourist industry also, and surely that lies within ambit of the minister's responsibilities, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the member has recommended a change in policy. We will take it under advisement.

Vote 81 approved.

On vote 82: building occupancy charges,

[ Page 983 ]

$227,933.

MR. KING: I would like to ask the minister how this figure of $227,933 for building occupancy rates was determined. I would like the minister to indicate to the House first if this figure was determined by his department, or by the Public Works department, or by consultation between the two.

MR. WALLACE: It was pulled out of a hat.

MR. KING: I would further like the minister to indicate the total square footage of buildings against which this rate is charged and a figure for the square foot charge on the building so that we know precisely what the rationale is for charging this not only against the minister's department, but presumably within the estimates of other ministries also. I would like to know that they are consistent, and that there is some rational formula for assessing that occupancy rate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if the member wishes to pursue this further, he should pursue it under the Department of Public Works. The figure is provided by the Department of Public Works and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). It includes a space for the minister's office, the Victoria offices, miscellaneous storage and the Vancouver office.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty accepting that. If this is to be a new businesslike approach in terms of purchasing a service from another government branch, then surely it's analogous to purchasing space from the private sector. Surely the minister is not suggesting to this House that he would purchase space from a private entrepreneur without knowing how much space was involved and what the price per square foot was. Is he accepting some blanket statement from his client without knowing whether he is receiving value in his department for the rental that he is paying? I thought that was a businessmen's government over there, Mr. Chairman. Certainly I want some more concrete indication from the minister than that. Does he not know? This is scandalous.

MR. COCKE: Fraser is pushing him around.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure these are based on fair estimates of the value as of the first year in operation. There is no private company that has space in the parliament buildings for my office. So I think the member....

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister understood the question. I'm asking if the minister would purchase space on the private market without knowing what the cost per square foot was. He is apparently prepared to do that with respect to his colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser). I find that totally unacceptable. Is this figure artificial? Does it indicate real or inflated value for the space that the minister is occupying, to say nothing of whether that space is adequately utilized? We are not debating that point at the moment. But surely the minister would not allow a particular amount to be inserted into the estimates as a charge against his department without knowing whether that figure is realistic or what the square-footage cost is. That is a reasonable question that the minister must answer. Certainly he owes that much to the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This department uses a total of 17,494 square feet in Victoria, and 3,435 square feet in Vancouver. The rental is based on the fair prices that you could buy in a marketplace today.

MR. KING: What's the square-foot cost? Shocking!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that we've dealt with this item in any of the estimates, and I think it's important, so that we can perhaps avoid repetition in each single minister's estimates that we debate.

I would like to know first of all — while the Premier is busy coaching the minister as to what actually happened in setting up this formula — was this figure simply imposed by the Minister of Highways and Public Works on this ministry? Or was there consultation? As I understand it, the full board of directors....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for Oak Bay has the floor, and it's difficult for the Chair to hear him. Please proceed.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to know that, since I understand the board of directors of the B.C. Buildings Corporation has not yet been fully constituted and does not have a full membership. I'm just wondering how this kind of figure in each of these ministries was determined. Or was it worked out by the Ministry of Public Works and simply imposed on this minister and the other 17 ministers in the cabinet? And while one might even be willing to consider that as an unsatisfactory procedure the first time around, what is to happen in the future? Who decides what is the adequate square-footage figure that should be decided on? Once again, we're presented with figures late at night.

[ Page 984 ]

But I gather there are 21,000 square feet and the vote shows $227,000. So I presume, in ballpark figures, we're talking about $10 a square foot. The Premier's shaking his head and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) says that's right. Mr. Chairman, it's so late at night to be confused like this. But if we take the ballpark figure for this department of $10 a square foot, is that what is being done with each of the 18 ministries? I'm asking now so that we don't have either Mr. Chairman or somebody else complaining when we get on to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and ask him how his figure for occupancy charges was reached. I'm just trying to save the House time, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know the members will realize that we're in a transition period. The per square foot is based on the location, the type of building, and on what is available. As I say, it's a transition period and I hope the member understands.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want a simple answer. Was this imposed by public works on your ministry or were you consulted?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The figures were made up, yes, by the Ministry of Public Works in consultation with the ministry.

Vote 82 approved.

On vote 83: computer and consulting charges, $160,000.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just one question. I would like to know from the minister whether this was a figure that was presented to him also by the computer branch. Did the minister's department have any role in determining whether this was a fair estimation of the demands that they placed upon the computers? Or did they simply accept a budgetary figure in blind fashion, in the same way that the building occupancy charges were accepted?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: These figures were based on our computer time last year and based on the anticipation of increased computer time this year with our stat Act.

MR. KING: What's the cost per hour?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister can tell us how much an hour he's being charged for the use of the computers. It's serious business, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, there are different charges for different services. And I haven't got the breakdown right here.

Vote 83 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On vote 2: minister's office, $95,034.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:09 p.m.