[ Page 1667 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Legal Professions Act Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill M 213) . Mr. Skelly.

Introduction and first reading –– 1667

Oral questions

Expenses of Human Rights Commission members. Ms. Sanford –– 1668

Phasing out of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Barber –– 1668

Royal Commission on Electoral Reform. Mr. Gibson –– 1668

Government agent review. Mrs. Dailly –– 1669

Closure of Granduc mine. Mr. Lea –– 1669

Vacancy on Committee on Crown Corporations. Mr. Stephens –– 1670

Notice of telephone rate increases. Mr. Lockstead –– 1670

Liquor warehouse losses. Mr. Macdonald –– 1670

Statement

UBC isotope facility. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1671

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Economic, Development estimates.

On vote 48.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1672

Mr. Lauk –– 1673

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1677

Mr. Levi –– 1682

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1685

Mr. Barber –– 1691

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1694

Mr. Lauk –– 1695

Mr. Stephens –– 1696

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1697

Mr. Gibson –– 1701

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1703

Mr. Lauk –– 1704

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1704

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Touring the precincts [illegible] a group of students from Roscrop Junior-Secondary School in the great constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon, led by their very able teacher, Mr. Kozak. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

M.S. SANFORD: Seated in your gallery today are Dr. George Piercy, the mayor of Comox, Bill Moore, mayor of Courtenay, and Ron Kew, who is the clerk at Comox - and I think there may be others in that delegation. I wish you would make them all welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have two introductions to make today and first 1 would like the House to welcome Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School, who are touring the building and the precincts today. My colleague, Hon. Rafe Mair, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, asked if I would make the introduction on his behalf as they come from his constituency. 1 would ask the House to warmly welcome them.

It is a great pleasure for me to introduce a visitor to our House, the president of the Monarchist Association of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver. She is also a member of the Social Credit executive of West Vancouver. I'd like the House to welcome Urs. May Ross.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are three people who are very dear to me: my sister-in-law from Courtenay, Mrs. Edith Stephens, her daughter - and my favourite niece - Kathie Crisp and, of course, my wife, Joan. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. BARNES: In the galleries with us this afternoon are some students from the Admiral Seymour Elementary School with their teacher, Mr. Dean. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM.: I ask you to welcome Mr. Eric Tsang of Mission and the grade 7 class of E.S. Richards School in that city.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In the precincts today and visiting us later this afternoon is a group of students and their teachers from the West Whalley Junior Secondary School. I would ask the House to bid them welcome also.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are about to go into question period and we have only eight cabinet ministers here. I wonder if the House would give consideration to

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are in the informalities of introduction of guests of members. Perhaps the point of order could be retained until a more appropriate time.

Introduction of bills.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

On a motion by Mr. Stephens, Bill 11 213, Legal Professions Act Amendment Act, 1978, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing orders require that all members attend the service of the House. Certainly that is interpreted to mean where it is reasonable to do so.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. members. Let's hear the point of order and then we can make a decision. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: My point is simply this: in the course of the proceedings this afternoon we expect that after the introduction of bills that after the introduction of bills there will be oral questions by members, at which time it is expected that questions will be asked of Crown ministers. Is it too much to ask that the ministers comply with that standing order, at least during question period? I notice a considerable number of the treasury bench are absent this afternoon.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On the same point, I really think that this legislative session has been one in which we have seen the embers of the executive council in very good attendance - very of ten better than any members of the opposition. I would suggest that the point of order is not well taken and that we are very well represented through question period on most days.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is incumbent

[ Page 1668 ]

upon all members to attend the chamber itself whenever possible. However, in days gone by the practice of the House has been that if members are in the precinct of the House it is an acceptable attendance. Although the Speaker would love to see greater attendance even during prayers in the House, nonetheless I have to leave this as a matter of conscience with all members.

Oral questions.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Is it a fact that one or more members of the Human Rights Commission, whose appointments expired in December of last year, have still not had their final expense accounts paid? If they have not been paid, could the minister advise the House as to why?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if one or more have not been paid. I can advise you, Mr. Speaker, and the member, that authorization has been given by me for the payment of all of their accounts as they have been submitted. It may be an internal finance matter, but I'll have it looked into.

PHASING OUT OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. BARBER: My question is to the Provincial Secretary, in her capacity as minister responsible for the B.C. Steamship Company, and in particular tile Princess Marguerite.

I've obtained a copy of tile Seattle Post Intelligencer dated May 20,1978. In a news report, the minister is asked about retiring the Princess Marguerite from service. Her reply apparently was: "We have some plans afoot. Don't worry, trust me." I wonder if the minister can confirm to the House today that she will shortly announce the replacement of the Princess Marguerite vessel on the Seattle-Victoria run by the Queen of Surrey.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is really not in order, hon. member, but the minister wishes to reply.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I really feel I should reply because the question that has been raised by the member implies that there is some suggestion that we would be getting rid of the Marguerite. I don't want that implication to be set forth from this legislative chamber, because that is not the case.

The question was not really related in the news. I haven't seen the coverage, but I do recall that there was a question raised by one of the people who were attending a luncheon last Friday at the inaugural run of the Princess Marguerite. One of the guests at tile luncheon, who is not with the press, said: "We understand there's a rumour that the Princess Marguerite will not be fit for sailing for very many years." I said at the time: "You shouldn't worry about the life of the Princess Marguerite." It is true that an old vessel such as that has a limited life, but that we would certainly be having some plans because of tile worth of the Princess Marguerite in terms of its value to the tourist industry in the province. Under its new format, it is certainly an efficiently run vessel at the present time.

I should share also with the House, Mr. Speaker, that the vessel, because of its age, does have a limited time. I think that the hon. member for Victoria understands and appreciates that a steam vessel of that age has a limited time. In the future there will be a programme put in place, I'm sure. That foresees a policy statement of the government only to the point that I suggest to you that we will not be stopping the run. I hope that that will give the member for Victoria, who has a great interest in that particular vessel, some hope.

MR. BARBER: It gives me much food for thought and little for understanding. I have no idea what the minister said.

My question is: appreciating that the run will be maintained, I'm asking about the ship that will serve the run. Is it the minister's intention to announce shortly the replacement on tile run - which I appreciate will be maintained itself as a service - of the Princess Marguerite vessel by the vessel Queen of Surrey? Yes or no. Do you intend to announce that? Are you considering that?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is still out of order. Does the minister wish to reply to it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON ELECTORAL REFORM

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Noting that the last public hearing of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform is tomorrow and recalling the extensive and vocal support for electoral reform given by the minister and his colleagues in earlier days, and noting that he has not yet made a submission, I would ask him if

[ Page 1669 ]

he will take the opportunity to give his views in person tomorrow.

HON. HR. McGEER: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: May I ask a new question? Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister while he's thinking about whether or not to appear, what his views on electoral reform are?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that this is beyond the scope of question period and that a question of this nature ought better to be discussed, perhaps, during estimates of the minister, which are still to come.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to tell the member that I consider it an important question.

GOVERNMENT AGENT REVIEW

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Finance. Why was the latest 12-page glossy Government Agent Review printed by the Merritt Herald instead of the Queen's Printer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: 14r. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice.

CLOSURE OF GRANDUC MINE

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Speaker. At a meeting in New York recently, Newmont Mines Limited reaffirmed that Granduc Mine will be closing on June 30, which will virtually wipe out most of the economic life of Stewart. Could I ask the minister what he or his ministry have done to date to ensure that there will be economic development in Stewart that will maintain the life of that community?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can certainly appreciate the member's concern for Stewart. First off, I haven't seen the recent decision that was made in New York, but my latest information is that with the price of copper now starting to rise and with the world demand again looking bright and stockpiles going down, that particular decision has not finally been made. Now that's the latest information I have.

However, with the thought of this eventually or possibly happening, my ministry has been working with the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Transport and Communications and various other ministries.

We're presently doing a study of what can be done for the lumber industry. We have some other ideas with regard to transportation facilities in the port of Stewart. I want to assure the member that I share the concern for the people of Stewart with him and I want to assure the member that we will do everything possible, working through the Minister of Labour and the federal government, to assure that everything possible will be done for those good people in Stewart.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary question, has the minister been in touch with the mayor of Stewart, Mr. McLeod, and if so, when?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have some time ago had correspondence from the mayor, I believe, and the people in my ministry, I am sure, have contacted him; but other than that, I haven't met with him personally nor has he requested a meeting with me.

MR. LEA: On a further supplementary, the minister then, as I understand it, is saying that there has been no initiative taken by himself to meet with elected representatives of Stewart to talk about the dilemma that community is in and to look forward to some planning for economic development for that area - there has been no specific overture by the minister to elected representatives of that community.

MR. SPEAKER: The question appears to be rhetorical, but the minister has an answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the question is a little bit argumentative, but that's anticipated. I want to again assure the member that even though we haven't had a meeting - so we can say we've had a meeting - the Ministry of Economic Development and other ministries in government are carrying on their work, and when we come up with some viable alternatives, we will certainly be willing to sit down with the civic authorities there.

MR. LEA: On a final supplementary, would it would be fair to say then that if I phone Mayor McLeod today, he will tell me that he has had good co-operation from you and that you have been in touch with him in regard to that community's problem?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That isn't what I said, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a submission by the municipality of Stewart some years ago with

[ Page 1670 ]

respect to a plywood plant in that area is with the Department of Economic Development. Has the minister decided to revive that proposal for serious consideration?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I also want to inform the House that the member for that constituency hasn't been in contact with the ministry to offer any alternatives or suggestions, and I would suggest that if he's really as concerned as he's making out to the Legislature, he would certainly have been in my office and would have been offering alternatives and would have taken some initiative instead of just yakking across the floor.

MR. LAUK: The member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) is surely not under attack in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: order, please. I can only recognize....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Do you want to remove your foot and answer the question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will have to take your question with regard to the particular study on notice.

VACANCY Oil COMMITTEE ON

CROWN CORPORATIONS

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Provincial Secretary. About two weeks ago I asked her when she was going to take steps to fill the vacancy in the allparty committee on Crown Corporations. I was under the impression that would be done fairly quickly, but the vacancy still exists.

I would like to refer the minister to standing order 72 (a) dealing with this Crown corporation committee, and subsection 6 thereof says: "A vacancy in the members of the committee shall be promptly filled by the special committee appointed under standing order 68."

It's been anything but prompt. The vacancy's been there ever since you were appointed to your present position, and I think it's time for some action.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in drafting a question we must remember that speeches are not to be made in question period.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to assist the member in information.

Three meetings have been called since that question was asked in this House. On three occasions they've had to be cancelled because all the members of the committee could not be here; some were out of town and so on. They were called with notice on two occasions and without enough notice on the one occasion -that is, within just a day. So we're really just trying to get those very busy people together, and we'll do so at the nearest opportunity.

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE RATE INCREASES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, who is the Premier and not in his seat, so I will direct my question to the Deputy Premier. CRTC, which regulates the B.C. Telephone Company, has announced in Ottawa major procedural changes to ensure that subscribers here will receive direct notices of any proposed changes in rates and services, and to require the company to compensate relevant public interest groups so that they can research and present consumer briefs at the rate hearings on an equal footing with the telephone companies. As the province regulates the Okanagan Telephone Company, a subsidiary of B.C. Tel, has the minister taken any steps to see that the people living in the Okanagan are afforded the same protection by this government that the federal government is providing to the customers of the parent B.C. Telephone Company?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll be pleased to take that question as notice.

LIQUOR WAREHOUSE LOSSES

MR. MACDONALD: Referring to the losses in the Vancouver warehouse of the liquor administration branch, which were publicized by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the grand figure of $1 million, does the Ministry of Finance now have an audit team investigating the extent of those losses, or has it had in the last month or two?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I believe that question was previously addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has responsibility, of course, for the liquor distribution branch. I'm not aware of an audit team currently involved in such a project, but I'll be glad to report to the House on the matter.

MR. MACDONALD: My information is from the ground that some auditors from the Ministry of Finance are in checking on the extent of that loss, so will the minister check into that?

[ Page 1671 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

HON. MR. McGEER: I ask leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear a no.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The whole question of ministerial statements in our chamber has never been solidified as far as procedures are concerned. However, the practice of other Houses is simply that a minister, when he wishes to make a statement, is not required to ask leave. It may well be that this should be a matter for research under the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiries Act, and it may even be wise to commend that there be a place on the order paper for the ministerial statements; nonetheless, leave is not required and the minister should proceed.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order - just so there is no misunderstanding about the views of the opposition - ministerial statements by leave have traditionally received unanimous approval. I should recall for the House that it is also the practice to have a spokesman of the opposition reply, with or without leave. That courtesy for the first time in the history of this chamber was refused during this session. Therefore the courtesy of the opposition is thereby withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a ruling from the Chair, which is no older than two weeks or perhaps three, and we could refer to it as to the method to be utilized in the House. Nonetheless, the minister does not require leave in order to make a statement and I would invite the minister to proceed.

UBC ISOTOPE FACILITY

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it would be as easy for me to make knowledge of events in British Columbia known in the corridor as in the House. But I thought the members of the opposition might wish to know of some of the developments in the province. On behalf of the Premier, who can't be here this afternoon, I would like to inform the House that today an agreement was concluded between the board of directors of TRIUMF - which involves our three public. universities - the British Columbia Development Corporation and the Atomic Energy Corporation of Canada Limited to construct an isotope facility adjacent to TRIUMF at the University of British Columbia which will put this province, for the first time, into advanced, high-technology industry. The facility built will ship radioactive isotopes around the world, the major use of which will be for medical purposes. It's an important day in the industrial development of British Columbia and I thought the House would wish to know.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we're pleased to hear the work that TRIUMF is doing. TRIUMF has been of long standing and they have done some outstanding work. Naturally we're going to be interested to read precisely what will be expected in the future, but certainly their potential contribution to cancer research and other areas is very important to us. We want to congratulate the government and the people at the university for what is going on.

MR. GIBSON: I too welcome the minister's statement. I wonder if the minister could make available to the House the relative financial shares of the parties concerned and the overall dollar volume.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Not at this time. Perhaps a little later.

HON. W. McGEER: I'll make it available to the members.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, before going into Committee of Supply, may I encourage all the members in the course of this afternoon to be calm and deliberate in their presentations and not to pound the desks? I am advised that the press gallery today, in celebration of their long history with the church, is devoting itself to prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the brief levity of the moment, I would like to remind the hon. press gallery that they would have been very welcome for prayers in the chamber at 2 o'clock.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I an advised that they attempted to attend, but some other pressing responsibilities kept them from their place.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On vote 48: minister's office, $154,432 -

[ Page 1672 ]

continued.

MR. LAUK: I was on my feet first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The tradition of the House is that the minister is recognized first during estimates. You were the minister at one time, but 1 believe that arrangement....

MR. LAUK: There's no need to be flippant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not being flippant. I've got a miserable cold and I don't especially have to deal with you for ....

MR. LAUK: This man doesn't even know where the constituency of Atlin is, for heaven's sake.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the enthusiasm with which the member for Vancouver Centre wishes to enter this debate. I promise that I shall be very brief in my comments. However, there are a few items that I did want to talk about. I realize the ministry has been a busy one and there are so many new initiatives underway that it took me some time to sort through as to wonder which ones to talk about. But I will be brief.

Before starting, I do want to say that I certainly am very proud to hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) make that announcement today. Even though he is not in the House, I want to thank the Minister for the co-operation he has given this ministry during the last couple of years in working with us to develop high-technology industries in British Columbia. fie has been with me at the meetings of those in the high-technology industries in British Columbia. We have made some initiatives. We have set up a high technology secretariat with the deputy ministers to see how we can knit together the technology that exists in the universities, the technology that exists in the industries them selves and the B.C. Research Council, and indeed how government can assist and foster this.

We recognize the growth potential of high technology industries. We recognize that it does fit into our overall economic strategy and that hopefully some day in the future we will have established in British Columbia the high-technology centre of Canada. One of the things that we have going for us over which we have no control but which we can take advantage of is the fact that we probably do have the best place in Canada for these high technology, sophisticated people to live. That is one advantage that we do have. Living in the lower mainland area of Vancouver offers amenities that they cannot obtain in any other city in Canada, and we certainly intend to use that. I did want to publicly thank the Minister of Education for his tremendous cooperation in helping and working with me.

I made a few statements yesterday about what the ministry is doing, but I will just review for the House a couple of initiatives which we have taken. As you know, we put Mr. Lance Howie as our economic adviser in Europe, working out of B.G. House and also responsible for the Continent. He has been following up the contacts we made in Europe last year and indeed promoting new contacts. He has not only been following up investment opportunities but has been seeking out opportunities in which British Columbia products can be sold.

Our statistics branch which we set up last year is progressing well under the guidance of Dr. McReynolds. Our ministry is now doing the bulk of research for other ministries in government.

We have made some changes in the B.G. Research Council and we have established some people there from the high-technology industries in British Columbia. We have also set up an executive of the board; it had quite a few meetings at the beginning. Unfortunately, I missed the annual meeting. I'm given to understand that the changes made there in order to make the B.C. Council more responsive to the needs of British Columbia and to have a greater liaison with the universities and with industry are indeed going to have results in the long run. By having people on that board who have been out in the field where they had to sell their technology, have had to deal with the federal government and have had experience with the universities is going to be a tremendous asset to the B.C. Research Council.

Mr. Chairman, we also established a Pacific Rim desk. We have a gentleman there who is responsible for dealing specifically with the Pacific Rim countries. That is starting to pay off.

As you know, the Premier, the Minister of Finance and myself took an economic mission to Europe last year, and the contacts we made are being followed up. We are increasing our efforts in that regard. I would say that the correspondence and interest we are now receiving from those European countries tell me that indeed the trip was very worthwhile.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any results?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The results are coming, yes. As you know, these things don't happen

[ Page 1673 ]

overnight, but I'm very confident. You know, it's the old saying: if you make enough demonstrations you are going to make some sales. I'm not saying that every inquiry we get is going to lead to an investment in British Columbia or a sales opportunity, but we are doing our bit in trying to create the climate for investment opportunity in joint ventures with British Columbia industry.

I traveled to Japan during the last two years, and last year I did go to Korea. The activity that has been flowing from Korea and the interest that they have in British Columbia - an added interest to British Columbia businessmen in seeking out new opportunities in Korea - has been very gratifying.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As you know, I'm a little hard of hearing. If you're going to speak to me while I'm speaking to you, you'll have to speak loud and clear.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we also put a technical consultant representing British Columbia in Calgary to work with the pipeline people and to identify opportunities for British Columbians and British Columbia business people. Just last week, we had our first seminar where we had the pipeline people in and we had our technical consultant. We anticipated that there would be approximately 200 people there. However, it resulted in an overwhelming response from the British Columbia business community and we had over 700 people in attendance with, I believe, 650 registered.

The point I want to make here, Mr. Chairman, is that during my very brief talk to those assembled during the luncheon, I pointed out to the pipeline contractors the benefits of spreading their business between British Columbia and Alberta, rather than aiming it all at Alberta business people. I had to point out to them that certainly there was, by the response, a tremendous influence or tremendous amount of interest by British Columbia business people and that we did, indeed, have a lot of talent and a lot of enthusiasm in British Columbia to help these people build the pipeline. I also was able to point out to them that by spreading the business around, getting more bids from British Columbia business people, they would indeed dampen some of the effects which the pipeline, I'm afraid, might have on western Canada in regard to inflation, and that they would get better jobs and possibly more competitive bids if they had British Columbia business people bidding on it.

In the talks that I had with Mr. Blair and Mr. Phillips after the meeting, indeed they were very impressed with the interest of British Columbia business, so I feel that has also been a success.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I had difficulty in sorting out what areas. I should talk about, because it doesn't matter whether you go to Nanaimo or Prince Rupert or the Peace River country or the Kootenays or Kamloops, there is a great deal of activity and a lot of things happening. I don't know what the members opposite are definitely interested in. So with those few remarks, I think that I will take my seat. I look forward to the discussions this afternoon and I look forward to elaborating on any part of the ministry's activities that the members opposite are interested in.

MR. LAUK: With a great deal of sympathetic deference to the request of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. William ) , I don't want anyone to be deceived that because I will keep my voice soft today that my usual strong feelings on this subject are unusually subdued.

Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to see that even though the TRIUMF-BCDC package is and should be the primary responsibility of the Minister of Economic. Development, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , of all people, stands in the House and makes the announcement on behalf of the government. I don't believe in petty rivalries and that kind of thing....

MR. GIBSON: Just big rivalries.

MR. LAUK: ... but I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that it's incumbent upon a senior minister.... We were led to believe at the outset of this new administration - I should say current administration - that the member for South Peace River was a senior minister who would oversee all aspects of economic. development, touching upon every department, every industrial sector and every region of this province. Indeed, if one were to look at the speeches of the member for South Peace River when he occupied a seat in the opposition side, those were the very words he used to describe the role of the Minister of Economic Development. So I must confess some surprise that the minister did not make that announcement himself from the Ministry of Economic Development point of view. He did rise - and I realize his feelings in this matter may have been somewhat stunned - to explain that it was indeed the Minister of Education who assisted him, and not the other way around as it should be.

When the minister refers to his trip to Japan and particularly the Premier's trade

[ Page 1674 ]

mission to Europe, naturally we are all waiting for some announcement, something concrete in the way of economic development for the province of British Columbia. The taxpayer did expend a great deal of money for that trip. A lot of civil servants were abroad with the elected politicians. A great many meetings were held, we're told. It was announced when the mission returned that many, many projects were about to be announced or would shortly be announced.

At that time the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development said: "We have great confidence that things will come." How long has it been since that trade mission? Almost a year and a half. Yes, it's been a great length of time and yet the minister in his estimates in the spring session of 1978 can do no more than to say what he said when he came back from Europe: "I have confidence that things will come."

That's just not good enough, Mr. Chairman. If you are to convince not just the opposition, but the public of the province of British Columbia that this trip was something more than a junket at taxpayers' expense, then surely you can at least announce something concrete a year or so later. Nothing has been announced - no coal contracts, not even a joint agreement to do a preliminary study for something. We were hoping, because of the offer made by European interests, that the minister would announce during his estimates the development of a coal gasification project in the province. This was discussed during my ministry and it was hoped that something concrete would be announced during this current administration - certainly by 1978. I'm greatly disappointed at the role that the ministry has played in terms of concrete action.

What the ministry requires, Mr. Chairman, is a minister who is a very aggressive person, who will seek out new markets and new projects for the province - and we need that kind of person. The head of that ministry has to be an ultra-salesman. And so there were a great many people in the province who were rather hopeful at his appointment to his present post, because he was a car dealer, he was a salesman, and some of those talents could be used perhaps to sell British Columbia in a positive way that would benefit the Commonwealth. Now we found that his talents as a car dealer, rather than having been helpful, were harmful to our interests, particularly in Japan.

Those are some of the comments that could be made. I have one final comment on the minister's opening remarks. He talks about the benefits of the pipeline. I wonder if the minister has forgotten the tremendous opportunity that this province almost had - that was scuttled by his administration - with respect to the benefits of a steel mill producing steel in this province and making pipe in this province for the pipeline that's been proposed. ISPCO - in the middle of Saskatchewan, with a sparse population - has a tremendous opportunity here. And I want to talk more about the steel-producing facility in Saskatchewan in relation not only to the pipeline, but to Railwest and to the supply of steel in the western Canadian provinces.

Before getting into specific areas for a comment, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee would bear with me. Mr. Tom Alsbury is just leaving the gallery and I just wonder if the committee would greet Mr. Alsbury, a very well known British Columbian.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday in The Vancouver Province an article appeared on the business page with respect to the grain car shortage. The headline reads: "Grain Car Shortage Getting Worse Instead of Better." Ships will be tied up in Vancouver harbour, and so on. I'll just read part of it, if the committee will bear with me, to emphasize the problem that we're having with rail cars generally in Canada and in particular in British Columbia:

"There were 20 ships at anchor waiting to load grain in the Port of Vancouver on Tuesday and the [illegible] bill incurred so far this year by vessel delays is estimated at more than $15 million.

"As of April, there were about 13,319 CNR, CPR and Government of Canada cars available for moving export grain. This fleet is a drastically shrinking one, however, and according to the Canadian Wheat Board, it will decline to about 9,979 by late 1979, dropping further to 8,124 cars in 1980, unless remedial action is taken.

"The federal government since 1972 has paid for 8,000 new covered hopper cars because of the refusal of the national railways to spend money on providing new rolling stock for grain traffic."

These are Ottawa tax-paid dollars, Mr. Chairman.

" In addition, Ottawa has paid to have defective boxcars owned by CPR patched up and returned to grain service. But according to the Wheat Board, the patch-and mend programme cannot stave off the retirement of company-owned boxcars. Soon all that will be left to move Canada's export grain will be the governments' hopper fleet, a miniscule portion of the total fleet of boxcars.

"The Wheat Board has asked the govern-

[ Page 1675 ]

ment to buy another 4,000 boxcars to stave off the transportation crisis. The request has been criticized by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, who headed a federal commission of inquiry into grain handling and transportation. Hall said his commission found no requirement for extra cars, and has suggested that any additional order for government rolling stock will be just a means of transferring taxpayer funds to eastern Canadian manufacturers."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've read the article.

MR. LAUK: Yes, you have. I wanted to read some of that into Hansard, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, read the whole thing if you want to.

MR. LAUK:

"Losses on grain traffic have evidently encouraged CNR and CP Rail to ref use to invest in new rolling stock for moving grain, leaving the government to do the job. Ottawa places first orders...."

It then gives the history of the production. Further along, the article goes on to say:

"Early this week there were 1,250 grain cars awaiting unloading in the lower mainland, but by the end of the week the number of waiting cars will be down to a few hundred. Grain cars are not the only pieces of rail equipment in meagre supply. A meeting held by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Portland, Oregon, last week was told that on any given day recently, Canadian and United States rail carriers have been short an average of 63,000 cars of all types."

Now I want you to consider the staggering proportions of that report. We are now told something that we were not aware of when Railwest was being considered by the royal commission into the British Columbia Railway. We're told now that there are 63,000 cars short in North America. We're told now that the CPR and CNR are subsidized for repairing their cars. We were told at the time that the matter was before the McKenzie royal commission that this government in British Columbia would not subsidize the production of railcars in this province. We were told that eastern manufacturers were therefore more competitive. When this opposition argued that the eastern manufacturers were subsidized, so why shouldn't we subsidize our own plant, we were told that was not correct information, that eastern manufacturers were not subsidized. In eastern manufacturers were not subsidized. In fact, the railroads are being subsidized. What on earth is the difference? The fact is that our taxpayers' money on a federal level is going to subsidize eastern manufacturers of boxcars, while this government stands in supine acquiescence, as Railwest closes down and 500 people and 500 families go out of work.

That kind of negligence on the part of the Ministry of Economic Development and on the part of this government cannot be tolerated any further in this province. I fear it's not only a cavalier attitude towards the average working family, it's a complete misunderstanding of the economic system in this country and, in particular, the province of British Columbia. We're not running a hardware store. Each decision that's made on a government and industry level affects every other department of government and every other aspect of industry and commerce in this province. It's about time that we started making comparisons, that we started evaluating our decisions not only as they affect the narrow situation such as Railwest, but how they have a domino effect throughout the whole economic system.

The shutdown of Railwest was a tragedy -nothing short of that - not only for the 500 families, but for the province of British Columbia, because we're now treading water at a time when aggressive policies and projects on the part of the Ministry of Economic Development could do a great deal to even out this recession that we in Canada and we in British Columbia are facing.

I wonder if the minister knows that a study may shortly be completed which is expected to will produce shocking figures with respect to the number of additional unemployed in this province that were created by the direct policies of the provincial administration.

MR. GIBSON: Who's doing it?

MR. LAUK My learned friend from the Liberal Party asks who is doing it. I'm not at liberty at this time to say. The results will be announced, I'm sure, and I hope that the Hon. member will be as learned at the time.

The railcar shortage of 63,000 cars encourages me to discuss another aspect. Surely to goodness with some modest subsidy from the provincial government, or perhaps a joint venture between the BCR and the BCDC with some private investment, the manufacture of railcars could have been expanded, and I say quite easily expanded, to include hopper cars, bulk loading flats and other rail carriage, to the extent that we, with a modest subsidy, can compete throughout North America for the supply of railcars. That's the first point I have

[ Page 1676 ]

to make.

The second point I have to make is this. Shortly the government of Saskatchewan may announce - because they presently have it under consideration - that the Crown potash corporation in Saskatchewan will and should enter into the area of manufacturing of hopper cars for the transportation of potash to the United States and points east and west from the great potash resource in Saskatchewan, using IPSCO steel-producing railcars in Saskatchewan for supply around the world. A slight bit of imagination, Mr. Chairman, would tell you that we should be supplying those cars to the potash company; we should have been in production.

I say it was a petty, vindictive act to close down Railwest, and there was no other reason for it except it was an NDP project -that's the only reason. To hire a couple of accountants to give you some information on marginal discounts and other jolly numbers is pure excuse.

There are people who will be more charitable, and let me present their case to this committee. It has been suggested by people in industry and economists across the country that the Bennett administration is being swamped by its experts. It is incapable of making what should be a clear political and economic decision at the political level. You see, when you allow experts to make decisions for you, you shut down Fort Nelson, you shut down Railwest and you shut down other projects in the province, because experts, by definition, have no vision. They only deal in data. They know more and more about less and less. They do not have an overview of what we should be doing in the province of British Columbia. I think it was the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who once said that if all of the experts were laid end to end, that would be a good thing.

Experts got very little time from W.A.C. Bennett, from C.D. Howe, from Mackenzie King, and from any other progressive and dynamic, administration. They are one of the most dangerous scourges on the face of the continents. The Deputy Minister of Economic Development is one of the few exceptions, because I hired him myself, Mr. Chairman. Everyone knows my judgment in these matters is impeccable.

But with sincerity, I must caution the Minister of Economic Development and ask him to intercede in his government. Extricate yourself from the grip of these experts because they're bringing us all down to our knees.

I was amused to see reports only from chartered accountants with respect to Railwest.

There was nothing about marketing that was of any substance whatsoever. It was just jolly numbers - chartered accountant stuff.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, certainly you've gone from black to white. I must get the name of your tailor so we could have him deported.

I think that this point cannot be made too often. I'm sure the minister has just considered that. The railcar plant at Railwest has lost a great opportunity because Saskatchewan may well announce the production of railcars in Saskatoon and it makes eminent economic sense. They produce steel at IPSCO of the nature that can be used for pipe, and pipe rolled steel can be used for hopper cars. Hopper cars carrying potash are one of the few times when you can use that hopper car to carry grain. Hopper cars owned by the potash corporation and not by the railway are not subject to the railcar international agreements. Therefore those potash cars must be returned at the greatest possible haste, and not subject to the ordinary railcar agreement. I'm sure your deputy can inform you how that works.

It makes absolutely brilliant economic. sense on the face of it. I'm sure a great deal more analysis must go into the figures and the investment that will be required, the return on the. investment and so on.

For the average car on a unit train, CPR-CNR charge rates of something like $25 to $30 per ton; single cars are about $35 per ton. The average car pays itself off within five years at those rates. Yet the average hopper car has a life expectancy of 40 years - in many cases higher - in its use. You write the cost of the production of the car off in 5 years - that's what potash is paying now - then at the end of the five years they have 1 an asset for 35 years, paid for - free transportation. Of course I haven't mentioned the cost of attaching an engine to it and running it across somebody else's railway, but we can get into that. That's the tremendous prospect that was available to us when we closed down Railwest, Mr. Chairman, and now it has been lost.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other aspects of the ministry that should require some explanation. It's difficult to point to anything specific. I can't say that the minister has done anything wrong. But I can say that he's done nothing. It's difficult to criticize a minister for doing something wrong when he hasn't done anything. I want to emphasize that when I say he hasn't done anything, I mean he

[ Page 1677 ]

hasn't done anything positive, he's not created any new projects, he has no economic strategy for the province of British Columbia. That's it - pure public relations, Mr. Chairman.

It should be emphasized that when I was the Minister of Economic Development, I took what that hon. member said seriously. He said: "Make the Department of Economic Development the nerve centre for industrial expansion and economic development within the province." And we established a new department under the Department of Economic Development Act. We established the British Columbia Development Corporation. We're rationalizing industrial land with the BCR and that owned by the Development Corporation. We were starting to move into an industrial strategy, Mr. Chairman, that could have ridden out the bad times, because of the ingenuity and vision of the government itself. What's happened since the new administration has taken office is all engines reverse. Plant closure after plant closure; railway lines going down the tube; disastrous delays in decisions on the BCR; the British Columbia Development Corporation getting a paltry $10 million in this budget.

I fear that this is a story of a man who had great promise but has failed to reach his goal. In the beginning of 1976, we saw a minister who was described as a superminister that would conduct the economic strategy of a new Social Credit administration. Since that time, week after week, month after month -scandal-ridden in the first year, totally incapable of decision in the second year.... The legacy of that two years of disaster is coming to fruition now.

The minister has no influence in the cabinet. The Minister of Education makes his announcements. The Minister of Finance gives him a drop in the bucket to run one of the most important economic tools in the province, the Development Corporation. Ten million dollars! I do not exaggerate, Mr. Chairman, that if I was the minister in the fourth or fifth year of the operation, the Development Corporation had received only *10 million, I would not hesitate to resign and go and sit in the back bench, because that's what the government's attitude toward you is. It's back of the hand treatment for you and your ministry, and it should not be tolerated.

It's not you that I'm concerned about. Yes, I am personally. It's your office and your responsibility to the people of this province. When they let you down, they let us all down. And that's what the tragedy is. I wish you were stronger in cabinet. I wish you were more persuasive, I say through you, Mr. Chairman. I wish you could get more money to do the hardware stuff of government, not the software.

I appreciate there are problems - I had a few of my own -'with respect to getting money out of treasury, and other ministers announcing projects that we had been working on for 10 months. These things happen. But if there was a forward thrust that could give us confidence that you were in charge, there'd be no need for our great alarm and great concern for the future of our economy.

There is great alarm and there is great concern. We have been let down because you have been let down. You have been let down, I fear, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, because the minister has no clout and no influence. Having regard for the minister's image, I know this may be a complete contradiction, but I feel he is too shy. lie is just too shy. He doesn't seem to demonstrate the confidence in himself and in his ministry.

I heard the Minister of Agriculture say that you were too nice a guy, and that's true. You give the appearance of being full of thunder and lightening, a fire and brimstone minister, but you're a pussycat and we can't have a pussycat in the Ministry of Economic Development. We've got to have a C.D. Howe. We've got to have a tiger.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He's a cougar.

MR. LAUK. He's a cougar cub.

I know that I only have a few seconds left, but I just want to say this to the minister: there is still time, brother, to turn things around. In two and a half years you have run out of my ideas. Now it's time to start developing a few of your own. later on, maybe next week in your estimates, I'll give you a few more ideas and maybe you will accept them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I feel I should make some response to that devastating attack on my ministry. First off, I might say there was some reason as to why the Minister of Education made the announcement on the TRIUMF project. I did mention that we work together in this government. Actually the Premier was going to make the announcement. But had he made the announcement, he would have had to have the Minister of Education along behind him to explain about all of these - what do you call them? - isotopes and all of the stuff that I'm sure the press are out there asking him about. I'm not bashful in telling the member that I don't understand it. I know it has great potential for high technology industry, and I understand that in a few years we may be supplying that technolo-

[ Page 1678 ]

gy around the world. But if you are asking me personally if I understand what it is all about, the answer is no, I don't.

MR. LAUK: Neither does Pat. He doesn't know anything about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As a matter of fact, he does. He tried to explain it to me this morning, but I'm telling you that it went right over the top of my head.

MR. GIBSON: What's an isotope?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what an isotope is. It's something that you swallow, evidently, and it's supposed to cure all your ills. I don't understand how they make it. For the life of me, I don't know why Atomic Energy of Canada is involved. I just don't understand it. I know they are going to have a building and we are working with them. Maybe that will relieve the member's mind because I don't want him to be too anxious.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is an isotope?

MR. LAUK: An isotope is the opposite of a not-so-niceotope.

HON. M. PHILLIPS: It's got something to do with iodine and the goitre, evidently.

With regard to our trips to Europe and Japan, I want to remind the member that it hasn't yet been a year since we took that mission to Europe. I know the member and his cabinet took some economic missions during their term of office.

MR. LAUK: With great results.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, 1 will be kind this afternoon and try not to be political.

We have had some positive results. of course, I know the member understands that these decisions of foreign countries to invest or buy in British Columbia aren't made overnight. It takes time. You have to keep selling and selling. I know the member really understands that deep down in his heart.

We have been successful. As a result of our initiatives, 1 believe Seaboard Plywood has sold $1 million worth of plywood in Europe. Our herring sales - not herring roe, but herring fish - have gone to $25 million. We have an average of three serious investment inquiries per week. As I pointed out, our man Lance Howey, who is established over there as our European contact, is certainly following up those inquiries. Because of the workload he presently has, in the very near future we intend to put a new senior trade officer in London to back him up.

The member knows too well the importance of monitoring, having input and finding out what is going on in the Geneva and Tokyo round of negotiations. I have heard that member's views before and I know the member also recognizes that we are making progress in getting Ottawa to listen to our point of view. The member does realize that I presented a paper in Ottawa last October on behalf of the four western provinces and that a liberal view is now being taken on the part of Ottawa. If the member wants to get into further details as to how we are coming on that, I would be happy to furnish him with a report. I don't want to get into all of the details this afternoon.

The member must realize that there always is a follow-up to these negotiations. A number of deals are made between the private sector and the European countries and between our own private sector that we never get to hear about. That's also been one of the complaints of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa, that they go over and do the spade work and yet when somebody says "Now what are the results?" they have a difficult time pulling in the direct results. But it happens and you can look at the overall figures and the overall statistics and that's really what you have to go by at the end of the year.

But our trade-related activities have resulted in $90 million increased sales, or approximately 2,500 jobs in the year 1977-78 to date. Those are the latest figures I have. So I think that's a pretty good direct result.

I don't want to rehash and dig up all the political pros and cons of a steel mill, but if the member wants to get into full debate on the steel mill, I'll be quite happy to. But it bothers me when he stands up and uses political rhetoric to say that we lost the steel mill, because he knows that is not the case. The steel mill was lost because of decisions made by your government during negotiations with regard to location.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's all very well and good for you to stand in this Legislature and make oversimplified statements. I appreciate your position, being in opposition, but if you want to get down to a knock-down, drag-out debate on the steel mill, well, be my guest.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, I will.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have the infor-

[ Page 1679 ]

mation here and I can get more. I've made a couple of speeches on this and I'd be quite happy to engage you in debate. Of course, the end result would be that neither one of us would be the winner.

MR. LAUK: Well, one of us may be a little wiser.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sure you're very wise if you would wish to tell the House all you know about the situation.

MR. LAUK: I'm not saying which one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now with regard to railway boxcars, I get the feeling - and I . know the member knows better - that he thinks that the British Columbia taxpayer should supply sufficient railcars to the North American railway system to ensure that there would never be a shortage. I want to assure the member that so far as the railway car shortage on the British Columbia Railway system is concerned, there is no car shortage on the British Columbia Railway system. We have sufficient cars there to haul our lumber, but there are times historically when due to other circumstances there are short-term shortages. I can't be responsible for the fact that the entire North American railway system has a shortage of boxcars.-

With regard to coal gasification, we're monitoring this situation fairly closely and we've had, as you know, a lot of interest about the plant that presently exists in Africa. We've looked at the economics of it. You know, Mr. Member, and I know, that that plant and the technology they use there and the amount of labour they use there is not transferable to British Columbia. We have been monitoring what they're doing in the United States. As you know, the United States is spending a vast amount of money in research on coal technology, as is Great Britain. I believe Great Britain spends about $140 million a year, not only on fluidized bed consumption, but on all aspects of other uses of coal. The United States is spending about $400 million and they have just completed a plant. I can't identify the exact location at the present time. It was a joint venture between the United States government and Mobil Oil, and that plant is now onstream producing gas out of coal. The cost of the gasoline per gallon is about 40 cents more than from the normal sources. I am thinking very seriously of taking a little sojourn down there to talk to the people and take a look at the plant itself so that I'll be better acquainted with the logistics and the research behind it. I understand this can't be licensed unless it's a joint venture with the United States. In other words, Mobil Oil can't step out. I understand also that there are other experiments underway in the United States and, I intend to become more knowledgeable about the projects; also I will seek a company or companies, a joint venture, to do studies in British Columbia.

The member mentioned employment and how we have caused so much unemployment. I'm not going to go through the debate on the numbers game with the member this afternoon, because the facts of Employment and tile new jobs in British Columbia which I have outlined to this House before during the throne and budget debates, as has the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , and the facts of the jobs that have been created.... I've gone through the numbers on investment last year. I can go through them again for the member if he wishes me to, but tile facts are there. Indeed the economy of British Columbia is not busting at the seams but it is progressing slowly and steadily to improvement, and there are new jobs being created. I could stand here this afternoon and I could talk about a number of projects that are just in the wings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I could name them - you know very well - but I'm not going to build up expectations; that's not my responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER; You're certainly not doing that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When I stand up in this Legislature next year and recount the statistics - as I've done this year - about the investment and about the jobs, I won't stick my chest out maybe that far, but I'll be feeling pretty good because it is happening, and I'm very confident. As I say, I'm not going to build up expectations, because the one thing we have to watch in British Columbia is that we still have to export our products and we still are fighting inflation and, if we build up those expectations and if things get heated up too much, I would certainly not be living up to my responsibility by increasing expectations beyond what is going to happen. But as I say, I'm confident.

If you want me to name some of the projects we're already involved in, I'll talk to you about how we've been the catalyst in getting a new port development going at Duke Point.

[ Page 1680 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it isn't signed yet, but I want to tell you I'm confident that we're certainly closer than we were two years ago and we have overcome some very.... (Laughter.) Well, all right, you who laugh first maybe laugh last (laughter) , but I'm very confident chat the project will go eventually.

As the member for Vancouver Centre knows, it would be much easier in the province of British Columbia to get a lot of these projects going if we indeed had control, entire control over our own economy.

MR. LAUK: Take it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now I'm not suggesting that it's difficult to deal with Ottawa, not at all. I'm suggesting that we have been fairly successful in dealing with Ottawa; as a matter of fact we've had a number of negotiations with Ottawa which resulted in increased activity in British Columbia.

But we must be patient sometimes - and I'm very impatient about Duke Point. You know, I've been sleeping with that project for about two years now and I'm getting a little tired of it. But I think that in the not-too-distant future there will be some realization of the dreams that we have. Indeed, once that has gone and the government or the development corporation has been the catalyst, then of course private development will follow along behind that.

Now whether you want to talk about Kamloops where we're developing industrial parks and where we're making great progress with the cattle industry or whether you want to talk about Kimberley or whether you want to talk about Prince Rupert or whether you want to talk about Houston or whether you want to talk about Bilbury Island or whether you want to talk about the Kootenays or you want to talk about the Peace River area....

Yes, Mr. Chairman, things are happening in British Columbia, and, as I've said, I now feel like a juggler with about 40 balls in the air. There are a lot of them that I can't quite sign. With some of them it's because of further negotiation with Ottawa, with some of them it's because of the world situation. As I say, I'm not going to build up expectations, I'm not going to talk about the pulp mills and the sawmills and the other plants and inquiries that are coming into my office -that's not my responsibility. I do look forward though to a continuing, steady, expanding growth of the British Columbia economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Generally speaking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, generally speaking. You know, the same as we had last year. If you want me to go through all of the numbers....

MR. LAUK: Steady, expanding growth of the bureaucracy - that's what has been happening.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you'll have your opportunity in a moment now, because I'm not going to....

MR. LEVI: Carry on; you're advancing down a hill backwards.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All right, we'll let you back down the hill frontwards.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it's clear to me that the minister is quite correct when he says he's not raising expectations in the province of British Columbia. No one now, after two and a half years of seeing this gentleman in the portfolio, expects anything at all. The hon. minister suggests that soon he'll be sticking out his chest. Well, I hope so, because he's in a vulnerable position now, having spent two and a half years leading with his chin.

He discusses Duke Point. Well sometimes -lest we forget - it's useful to remind hon. ministers of the comments that they've made over the course of their ministry with respect to these projects.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not fair.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I know it's not fair. When was it? In January, what did he say then? " 'The B.C. Development Corporation will start on the first stage of a Nanaimo industrial development in the hope that the federal government later will build an adjacent deep-sea shipping terminal. The corporation expects to call tenders within three weeks for clearing and servicing a 30-acre site for lumber operations, ' Economic Development Minister Donald Phillips said Tuesday." Now can you tell me what Tuesday that was? Was that last week, Mr. Chairman? Was it last month? Was it two, three, four months ago? No, this was January 8,1978. Now those tenders are getting tenderer all the time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, but if you'd been up there. Have you been up there to see what we're doing?

MR. LAUK: I'd prefer to see the tenders. I

[ Page 1681 ]

prefer to see the work done.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we're doing it.

MR. LAUK: The last time I was through Nanaimo on December 4,1977: "Duke Point Promise Cheers Ney." For those of you who are unfamiliar with the great and tremendous historical tapestry of this province, Ney is referring to Frank Ney, who is the mayor of Nanaimo. I'm told now that the mayor would like to see the minister. He was cheering the announcement back there, but I think that right now he'd like to see a little bit more than announcements.

HON MR. PHILLIPS: Give us two more weeks.

MR. LAUK: Would you believe three more weeks? Well, look, I know that these things have their problems and you're very anxious. You're poised on the starting blocks. Sometimes false starts do occur. If this were the only example of that, I wouldn't even raise it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Give me another one.

MR. LAUK: There are countless examples. The most horrendous example was this great PR job on northeast coal. I'm, of course, inviting the member for Prince Rupert to get into greater detail about that. This hype job, to use a commonly used phrase, did no service to us whatsoever in this province. You raised expectations, and you were the very catalyst, I contend, that lost the coal contracts with Japan that would have made the northeast coal project viable.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want to get into a debate on that?

MR. LAUK: I've only been screaming and yelling about it for six months. I mean, what more do you need?

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister invites comment on the steel mill. Certainly NKK was informed that the government was of the view that a steel mill at Point Roberts producing six million tons of steel and pouring its slag into the Pacific Ocean was moderately unacceptable. We also informed the Japanese team that building one at Qualicum Beach wasn't such a good idea either. It might interfere with the bathers. But there was no indication from the Japanese side of this team, up until the time you took office, that that would be any kind of a reason for them to withdraw from the project in its entirety. The Kitimat and Prince George sites were seriously considered. There were serious reports on its economic and social and environmental viability. They're sitting in the library. Do you mean to say that IKK would expend millions of dollars and have their teams out here studying Kitimat and Prince George right up until 1975-76 if it was true that they withdrew because Point Roberts was no longer an acceptable site to the government? Nonsense! It was pointed out many, many months before the NDP administration left office that Point Roberts wasn't viable. And the Japanese did not pull out of the project. The charge made by the minister that that's why the steel mill couldn't be built is utter nonsense and completely refutable.

We're not wedded to any particular style or any particular size of steel mill. I'd be interested in the comments of the minister, who said that perhaps a steel mill would be built. Maybe he has got something on the drawing boards that he could tell us a little bit about today. But it's certainly something that shouldn't be tossed over. Good heavens, if ISPCO could do it in the middle of Saskatchewan - you know, the people that put up the brick factory - surely we can do it out here in the dynamic province of British Columbia.

I'm disappointed, Mr. Chairman ' that the minister did not comment in any real way on my resume of the current status of railway cars in the country and in North America. I'm not suggesting that we should be the suppliers to the total North American railway system. I wish we could; I wish that was viable. I don't think we could produce that many cars. But I am saying that it would be an economically viable industry to produce railcars for railways in North America at reasonable prices. It's only a matter of time before the major railways of Canada are forced to start spending money on railcars and forced to update their rail machinery. It's only a matter of time before the words of Mr. Justice Hall will haunt the Liberal administration into action. You know it and I 'Know it. Therefore Railwest becomes more viable at that point as well.

But would the minister please comment: Has he had communication with the potash corporation of Saskatchewan? Does he know that they're planning to build these railcars? At the very least, could he sell some of the plant to them - that they can move it out there? Produce railcars in Saskatoon? Because everybody knows it's not viable in Squamish. Why we don't know, but the minister says it's not viable. Potash seems to think it's viable in Saskatoon. Can he look into that for us? Is there any chance that we can revive Railwest,

[ Page 1682 ]

build hopper cars and sell them to the potash corporation? We've already got the plant there. We're starting to train a work force. Where's the vision and the imagination? What's happening to this administration?

Finally, on a philosophical point, the minister is sad. He says we don't have control over our economic destiny in the province of British Columbia. Isn't it a pity, he says, that we don't have that kind of clout? At the same time, he is going around the province saying that this job can't be done by government, it's got to be done by private industry. He is saying that as private industry is sneaking out the back door with their bags full, getting the heck out of the province. The last one out, turn out the lights. Private industry isn't doing its job; CPR isn't doing its job. That's where the difference lies between two sides of this House. It's totally unrealistic in 1978 to argue that private industry can do the job in a complex world economy such as we have. It's unrealistic; it's hiding your head in the sand.

Philosophically, you've got to turn yourself around if you're going to do any good whatsoever for the province. We've got to be actively involved in the economy. Economic planning and economic strategy are the keystone to economic success in the province of British Columbia. I'm proud to say the New Democratic Party in its convention last weekend passed one of the most significant economic documents in Canada. I'm going to send a copy of that document to the Minister of Economic Development and I'm going to send a copy to the deputy minister so the deputy can read it to the minister. Maybe we can have some hope of an economic strategy for this province instead of running for cover, retreating, plant closures, mine closures, jobless families, dead towns like Stewart, the forest industry in utter confusion and a minister with great expectations, a minister with great promises.

As he said: "I'm confident that something is bound to happen." I wonder if the minister wouldn't please at least undertake to contact the potash corporation and offer full cooperation, perhaps with some idea of sharing in the wealth in the progress of Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provinces that we're letting pass us by.

MR. LEVI: Where is this big tough upcountry unit that used to be in this House with his mouth in high gear and his mind in neutral? He's not here any more. He gets up this afternoon and he tells us....

MR. BARBER: He's in Atlin.

MR. LEVI: He's in the member for Prince Rupert's (Mr. Lea's) riding; he's in Atlin. At least that's what he thought during the question period. You are now sure, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is sure that Stewart is in Atlin.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I talked about the member.

MR. LEVI: No, no, no, you were not talking about the member, Mr. Minister. You were in your usual fog - all fogged up, didn't know where you were. He gets up and he says: "I don't want to tell them about the great things that are happening in the province." He wants us to coax him into telling us what is actually happening in the province. He's very quiet.

The interest of the back bench on the other side is equal to the kind of interest that appears to be in the economy, regardless of what the minister says. I would have thought he might have got up and bragged a little bit about his land policy for industry. Perhaps he will tell us when he gets up what's happening at the Port Hardy industrial park. Tell us. Don't just print something. Tell us what is happening. What is happening in the Kamloops industrial park? Tell us exactly what is happening. What is happening in Fort St. John on the station grounds? Give us a little information. You're more up to date than this is, I presume, and this is one of your own publications.

What I want to talk about this afternoon is something that the minister made quite a discussion on last year in his estimates and also when we debated the statistics bill. At that time, he enunciated the government's concern, and frankly everybody's concern, that we have to cut out the red tape. We've got to give business an opportunity to move. Okay, I want to put a couple of cases to him and then I would like him to tell me just what the government has done. I wrote a letter to the president of Chevron Oil because they had done a study of the amount of reports that they had to do as an active company in British Columbia. I want to read to you the letter that he sent me back.

"Thank you for the letter of March 15 inquiring into the study our company conducted on government reporting require ments. The study was conducted in December, 1975, and since that time we've had considerable increase in reporting requirements to the federal government with particular regard to the Anti-inflation Board and energy, mines and resources. The

[ Page 1683 ]

421 reports that were highlighted in the 1975 report are broken down as follows...."

They enumerate it: monthly, they have to file 29 reports; quarterly, 12; annually, 25. The total amount of reports are 421 reports.

Now last year the minister indicated to us that he was going to make things a little easier for their four corporations to operate and for businesses to operate.

Mr. Macdonald, president of Chevron Oil, carries on:

"The total number of actual reports, 66, are largely generated for the federal government. We find the provincial and civil levels of government reporting requirements to be reasonably managed. But compared to the federal situation, as you no doubt appreciate, our major concern in this whole issue is the duplication of information required by different departments within the federal government, and also, of course, the overlap of information required by the federal, provincial and civic governments.

"We have not devoted any more time towards analysing the current number of reports nor the frequency in which they are required, as quite frankly we can't afford the manpower required to continue to pursue this matter.

"I'm attaching a copy of our worksheets from the 1975 survey which we undertook."

I was also told on the phone that because of all this work, they actually Employ four fulltime people in the research department to prepare these reports. The minister, when he gets up, perhaps will tell us just what kind of inroads he's made in the area of reporting and duplication, as Mr. Macdonald refers to, between what goes on in the federal government in terms of their requirements and what goes on in the provincial government. Read some of the reports.

It says here: "Reports to government agencies." It's mentioned here that there are some 11 provincial government departments that they have to report to. There's an incredible amount of gathering of statistics. Nobody is really quite sure for what purpose, but they're going on. I'll make available for the minister a copy of this, because it's along the lines of the things that he was talking about last year.

I also asked the B.C. Housing Corporation -I suppose we should refer to it as the late B.C. Housing Corporation - if they would enumerate for me the number of steps that are required of them from the time they conceptualize a programme in terms of housing until it's completed. They were good enough to put it together and they sent a letter along in which they say: "I have attached an outline of the process that occurs in order to secure a development approval." That was something the minister talked about last year. "There are variations, of course, depending on the municipality and we've set out the steps involved in both land development and building permit application." It has a list of stages in development of a project - innovative housing, multiple family development.

You know, there are some 42 separate hurdles to go over, and the total time it takes to get the thing on line for the approvals is from 25 to 31 months.

Now last year, and I think earlier this year, we discussed why some of the real estate companies are going over the border where they can get action in 30 days instead of 30 months. This is a very serious problem. All governments have to contend with it, but that minister indicated he wanted to do something about it.

In listing some of the work that has to be done, I don't want to read all of it, but I want to read some of it.

"Development sequence: preliminary inquiry to planning, and engineering departments, to acquire property, submit landuse contract application, agree to engineering requirements, preliminary layout prepared by a legal surveyor, planning department provides input in the application - one month.

"Submit preliminary development plans, architect produces preliminary development plans - one month. Design panel - one month.

"Developer makes presentation to planning committee - one month.

"Tentative approval to development received, development plans reviewed by engineering department, building department, parks and recreation department, planning department - one month.

"ELUC engineering requirements received from municipality - one month.

"Engineering consultants prepare design, may require approval from engineering department, building department, parks and recreation, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Telephone, cablevision, pollution control board, health branch, provincial fisheries, federal fisheries, Ministry of Highways, CMHC - approximate time, four months.

"Added to that, included in the four months - liaise with civil engineer and architect; design must be approved by CMHC; all requirements of planning and

[ Page 1684 ]

engineering and other municipal departments required prior to the ELUC being prepared for land-use contract, municipal solicitor and developer's solicitor agree...."

We're only on the second page.

"First and second reading of the land use contract by bylaw - one month.

"Public hearing - one month.

"Final adoption of land-use contract -another month.

"Architectural work drawings completed and approved - two months.

"Building permit issued - one month.

"Subdivision plan deposited by developer in Land Registry office; one month.

"Strata plan, if required, deposited, prepared by legal and deposited in land registry office...."

All of it, this is something that goes on every single day in this province. If anything could be a disincentive to people really wanting to do something, it's this kind of nonsense that's been going on for years. I'm not singling out any one government. What I'm saying to that minister is that he indicated last year tie was going to do something about this.

This letter is dated April 18,1978. This is a very recent drawing up of what exactly takes place. And it's costly. When you talk to people about the incredible amount of money involved and the incredible delays, because it takes, as they indicate here, anywhere from 25 to 31 months.... You may have to rehire some people to update some of the stuff that you submitted earlier in the game. I'd like the minister to tell us. Take the Chevron thing, which is that they are simply employing four people to keep up with the requirements of government that they produce information. We should know and evaluate what exactly we do with this information. Now that we've got the computers, of course, it's easier to store -much easier. And is it going to get worse? The indications are that it is going to get worse. There really needs to be an analysis of just how much information we are going to require, and what is surplus to our requirements, and get rid of it. This is the only company to my knowledge that has actually gone out publicly. There was a statement in the press some months ago and then they were good enough to let me have the material.

Perhaps that's what the minister should do. He should get his ministry to solicit many of the businesses, large and small, in this province and find out from these people what kinds of frustrations they go through in preparing all the statistical information. I don't know if the information's available about how many people have to go through all of these hurdles to produce a housing development as done by the B.C. Housing Corporation, and probably give up after they've realized the incredible amount of time it's going to take. Take the examples of people in the real estate industry going over the border, running away from the whole business of having to put up with this kind of thing.

The minister has got to be much more explicit. He hasn't been explicit about anything else this afternoon, but maybe he'll get explicit about this problem. This is a problem that touches everybody. These kinds of hurdles, particularly in relation to the construction of housing, eventually result in the loss of jobs because the developers and the investors go over the border and do this kind of work. Maybe the minister better send somebody to the state of Washington to find out exactly what the process is and how they can really move to cut back on some of this red tape, because that's absolutely essential. That's important.

The other thing I want to cover with the minister is something that he said in previous debates which relates to capital investment in the province. He made a pretty raucous speech. I think it was in the budget speech about how there was a reduction two, three or four years ago in capital investments. His own reports, put out by his ministry, do not show this at all. The minister is fond of talking about true facts, and I'm never quite sure what a true fact is. All I know is what's written in this book. When he talks about capital investment the minister might give us some figures about B.C. These are the kind of things I think he should have at his fingertips. But in your facts and statistics that you put out August 1,1977, you have on page 36: "Capital and Repair Expenditures in British Columbia by Type of Expenditure." You go back to the year 1974 and you say "$5.4 billion; 1975, $5.8 billion; 1976, $6.3 billion; 1977" - which is an estimate and you've presumably got it in front of you - "$7 billion."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What page are you on?

MR. LEVI: Page 36 of your bulletin. Look at the facts to see what we've experienced in British Columbia, contrary to what the minister likes to say and may say at many of these chambers of commerce dinners about how terrible it was when the NDP was here and they didn't bring any capital investment in. We had a steady increase in capital investment in terms of capital and repair expenditures in

[ Page 1685 ]

this province, right from the middle 1960s, averaging an 8 per cent to 10 per cent increase. Look at the facts - the true facts, as the minister says.

You know, what we have to do is to make sure that when the minister makes a speech in which he makes up his own figures....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you referring to this book?

MR. LEVI: You have a book you published called British Columbia - Facts and Statistics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Refer to the latest.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you do. You put it out. It was published in August, 1977. It's volume 25. The only thing is, I don't see the minister's name here. He's a very modest chap, this minister, in. Chairman. He doesn't even put his name on this thing. "Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Economic Development." It's got all true facts. Yes, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, these are all true facts. But I think there's a problem. The minister doesn't read them. Now he has another document there which he's probably going to read from and then we're going to have trouble getting him to table, but we may just get it done.

So let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. The minister cannot demonstrate, in a factual way - he can do it in a rather hysterical way, in his usual cornucopia of misinformation that he's fond of displaying. The facts are - the true facts, Mr. Minister - that the capital investment and fair investment of this province has increased at a steady rate, despite the fact that in 1974-75 we were going through a pretty tough inflation period, and the recession in terms of the economy was still going on there.

Now what we I-lave to look for, because this minister's job is to see that there is some kind of spur put to this.... I would have hoped that when he got up this afternoon he might have responded to the requests from this side that he name one project that he has initiated which is operating. All we have from him is that "it's on line; it's two and a half years; it's taking a little time; I'm hopeful it's going to happen." That's all we've had for two and a half years. He says he hopes that next year he's going to be able to stand up, puff-out his chest and tell us how many things he has done. But I would remind the minister that lie's not going to be here next year. He's not going to be able to do that.

He'd better take the opportunity and do it now, because next year is going to be far too late. I don't know if the minister is flipping through his report trying to find that, but let him get up and give us a little discourse on his concept of what capital investment is, what amount is coming in, what kind of things are going on.

There's another question I want to ask the minister. Last year there was a joint arrangement between himself and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that a couple of studies would be undertaken. There was a study to be done by J. Henry Schroeder, a capital market study. We were told that that study was going to be tabled in this House at the beginning of the session. We were not told that specifically, because we didn't know when the session was going to start, but we were told that it would be ready by the end of last year. Would the minister tell us what the status is of that study that's being done by J. Henry Schroeder?

Then what is the status of the other study, the investment markets, which 1 think are being done by Farris and Jefferson? What's the status of those two things? The minister will recall that about the time when there was a CBC programme which took a few swipes at the stock market in Vancouver, it seemed to bring on a series of announcements by the govern-ment, and I recall that those were two very specific ones. I'd like the minister to tell us: what is the status of those two reports? Can we expect that we will get them tabled in this House in this session? I think when they made the announcement last year they said it was essential to the future investment of the province that they have these reports done. Where are they? We want to know that.

So what I've done, Mr. Chairman, is to ask the minister to respond to the letter from Chevron Canada Ltd. in terms of the reports they have to make; the B.C. Housing Corporation statement about the numerous steps they have to go through in order to get a line on the red tape; I'd like to know about his views on capital expenditures in the province and particularly what's happened to those two reports that I mentioned just now. I'll sit down and wait for the minister to reply.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the points that the member has raised. With regard to the reports, I'll have to obtain that information for you, Mr. Member. I don't have it at my fingertips. As you know, that's being conducted jointly with the Ministry of Corporate and Consumer Affairs.

Now with regard to red tape, I think in your

[ Page 1686 ]

talk you really identified three areas. You talked about standards of building which is red tape and bureaucracy. We are moving. I have a committee working under George Giles to bring about a uniform standard building code. You know as well as I know what has happened in the past: you've had the department of electrical inspection putting something into the code, you've had some municipality throwing something in the code, and you've had the fire marshal putting something in the code. What we're doing, and we're into it now, is working to bring about uniform standards in plumbing, electrical and so forth. I'm satisfied that we're making some progress in that regard. It's going to be difficult because every civil servant that brings in a regulation justifies it when he brings it in, and it's kind of tough for him to say: "Well, maybe I didn't really need that." I'll tell you, we'll make some progress one way or another, I'll guarantee you that, but it's going to take a Solomon, as you know, to work together. That's one area.

The second area of red Cape you're talking about is reporting and forms. Now you know that was a major issue and discussed quite liberally at the Economic Summit Conference. If my memory serves me right, it's the Economic Council of Canada that is going to be responsible for looking after that. I've also had lengthy discussions with Tony Abbott, the minister in charge of small business. He's got some problems, because there again, if a civil servant requests information, it's pretty tough for him to come along a little later and say: "Well, maybe I didn't need that at all." But I want to guarantee you that there will be no duplication between the information we require in British Columbia and what they're getting in Ottawa, because we draw most of our information through Statistics Canada. That's the reason we put the Act through to give us legal access to those.

The third area you identified is the red tape encountered when somebody wants to start a project, the same type of red tape that the Development Corporation has had at Duke Point, for instance. You've got agencies galore. I sometimes feel that everybody wants to do everything they can to block development and not help to get rid of unemployment, which is the greatest pollution we have in British Columbia.

We've had intergovernmental meetings where we've had a chart on the wall identifying all of these areas, and it scared the hell out of me. It really did. We are moving to ask every ministry that wants something okayed: "Why do you really need that?" This noon I just okayed an advertisement I'm going to be launching in the paper asking just what you asked me to do. I'm going to survey industry and business. I'm going to say: "Look, if you are having problems in British Columbia with a project - I don't care what it is - I want to hear about it. You write to me." Hopefully, we've got our staff fairly well lined up to handle it.

I think there is going to be a devil of a lot of mail. We are going to try to help those projects through the bureaucracy. Then we are going to identify them. Then we are going to go back to those departments and say: "Hey, take a look at this." Some of them are going to have to go back to the municipal level. You know as well as I know, Mr. Member, that a lot of that stuff is out there in the city planner's office or in one of the multiplicity of agents we have created to make sure we sift, dissect, bisect and check every nail, every brick and piece of molding that goes into a project.

It's frustrating as hell for me. I'm not satisfied with the progress we are making, but we are making some progress. I want to tell you, Mr. Member, if you've got any great suggestions, I'd like to hear about them. I have an idea that it would involve a sledgehammer; I don't think it would get me very far. You can't do those things as much as you'd like to. I know you understand that.

With regard to capital expenditure, you're reading the figures out of the facts book we had basically made up for our European trip. The 1977 figures are estimated. If you would care to turn to our actual review and outlook which we recently published, you will find that indeed the total for 1977 is $7,161, 700. If you care to use some percentages, you will find.... I went through these in the House some time ago. Do you want me to go through them again?

MR. LEVI: No, no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They paint a pretty rosy picture. If you would like. me to, I can go through project by project. For instance, I can talk about a $369,300 warehouse in Langley, or I can talk about a warehouse in Surrey for $144,000, or I can talk about a new office in Victoria for $750,000, or another one for $1.14 million, or I can talk about warehouses in Surrey. I can talk about the Afton Mines investment. I can talk about grain elevators. I can talk about warehouses. I can go through the province. I've got them all here, every single project.

MR. LEVI: Will you table it?

[ Page 1687 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going to table it. You do your own research. I've got them all here, whether it's Prince George, B.C. Railway rail maintenance shop, office complexes, shopping centres, warehouses, silos, or just a straight plant expansion.

I also outlined to the House that in the industry we seem to be most concerned about in British Columbia and which we are trying to establish - secondary manufacturing - in 1976 there was a 6.9 per cent increase over 1975. But in 1977 in manufacturing, except forest products, there was an increase over 1976 of 29.1 per cent. That's a healthy increase in secondary manufacturing facilities in British Columbia. I'm not saying that this ministry was entirely responsible, but we've certainly created the overall climate. I think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the entire government have been responsible for this. We are making progress.

I don't wish to stand up here and brag and blow my own horn too much, but I am pretty proud. As I say, there are a lot of projects that I'm not going to talk about this afternoon. I'm not going to build up expectations. But I can assure you that I'll be able to stand in this House next year and talk about some pretty positive announcements that will be made.

MR. LEVI: You won't be here next year, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be here.

MR. LEVI: No, you won't. You're down the tube.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you predicting? Am I going to have a heart attack?

MR. LEVI: I would never predict that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why do you say I'm not going to be here then? You bother me. I feel you know something I don't know and that you've been looking into a crystal ball. Now you've got me worried. Unless you tell me why you know I won't be here, I might....

MR. BARBER: You're going to lose the election.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who said there was going to be an election?

Please do not say that I'm not going to be here, Mr. Member, because I might go around worrying next year about when it is going to happen. Is it going to be a car accident or a plane accident?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to have a backbench revolt.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that's it. Well, I can stop worrying.

MR. LEVI: I don't know whether the member has been up in his riding lately. They've got a little problem up there with the Fort Nelson extension. It's probably in the other member's riding but it affects him. I think that's what is going to lead to every possibility that he's not going to be around next year. So he better get his training all honed up because he's going to be doing something else.

Now the minister made some reference to a number of projects. What I would like to hear from the minister is this. 1 have been in touch with the B.C. Development Corporation. They have provided me with information. The only information they haven't provided me with.... I hope the minister is listening because I want him to answer this. I have a list of the projects that BCDC has approved. They were good enough to provide me with that and I'm not going to bandy around the projects because that's the undertaking I took.

The minister was referring to a document that talked about amounts of money. If you've got some good news - as you indicated that that's good news - and you talk about something happening in the BCR, something happening in Langley, why not tell us about it? Why not identify the factory, identify the amount of money? You keep tapping that secret document that you've got on the table and you keep saying: "I've got it."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: These aren't ones that are going to happen; they're ones that have happened.

MR. LEVI: If those are the things that have happened, then table the documents go we can see them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. Do your own research.

MR. LEVI: I made the inquiries. I can get a list of what's been approved under BCDC but I can't get the amounts. They won't tell me how much money has been approved. Now it's taxpayers' money. You're saying things are going along swimmingly. Then tell us what it is. Who got a $560,000 warehouse in Langley? That's all. It's very simple. Taxpayers have a right to know.

[ Page 1688 ]

I understand that , in my colleague's riding here, you've sent a number of letters talking about this company getting $18,000. What's wrong with producing the information, tabling it in the House and letting everybody in the House and the public - who provide the money -see exactly what you're spending the money on? That's what is called an open government. You guys made speeches about that in the last election. "We've got to have more freedom! We've got to be more open!" All he does is he taps on his desk and he says: "Ha, ha, ha, I've got the figures but you can't have them, Mr. Chairman." We need them. If we want to be able to examine the stewardship of your ministry, we want to know what you are doing. Now I can see that he's getting some very good advice from his deputy minister. The deputy is saying: "Well, it's not the biggest secret in the world. Why don't you let him have it?" Then we can have some understanding of exactly where the ministry is going, particularly in economic development.

So I would ask the minister, in the interests of the taxpayers and the members of this House, so that we can be better informed than we are.... It's not a matter of doing research unless we go around, I suppose, to every MIA and get a copy of every letter that he's ever sent out and total it all up. He has it in front of him. Now we would like to know how much money he spent in the last year on these developments, who got the money and for what reason the money was provided. That's a fair enough question. That's simply the minister, if he gives the information to us, exercising in the right way his stewardship of his ministry. Is the minister prepared to make that information available to us?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not sure just what projects you're talking about at BCDC unless they are loans. I think so far as any money that the Development Corporation is spending on any particular project, yes, it will certainly be published. But we have some problem, as you know, with regard to publishing loan figures, the same as a bank. We've had that debate in the House before.

With regard to the list of projects, these are private solicitations, and they've advised us how much each project costs. I'm reluctant to release it. We will have to double-check and see. This is solicited from private enterprise, but if you want to go into any community and you can see what's being built and go ask the guy how much the project costs, that's up to you. Or I could give you a list of the projects without the dollars involved. But I'm reluctant because this was privately solicited information. I am reluctant to say what the cost of each project was because that's private information. You know as well as I do but if you want me to cut the costs off, I can certainly give you the list of the projects. I don't think that's really what you want.

I want you to understand, this list that I'm referring to is investment by the private industry, not government loans or any taxpayers' money. This is what private industry has invested in these projects. Do you understand that? Somebody decides to do something in a place and it costs X number of dollars, right?

Now with regard to the ASEP loans that I referred to in the House, before the money is disbursed, we have an agreement with them that we can disclose this information. We haven't got all the agreements back but I do take the courtesy of extending to the MLAs whose ridings they go in that this has been approved. The money hasn't yet been disbursed. In a moment I will find the exact number of okays. I've got it right here somewhere. But that is a good programme and it is working and there are a tremendous amount of inquiries about it. It's a really good programme.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Member, if you would allow me to step outside for one minute....

MR. LEVI: Do you want me to step out with you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I can go by myself.

MR. LEVI: Why don't you sit down? I've a couple of other comments to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's some possibility that the vote could pass if you two gentlemen can find a mutual arrangement.

MR. LEVI: Why don't you ask the minister to resume his seat, and I'll rough it in?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Completed and pending approval as of March 14 on the assistance to small enterprise programme, ASEP, there have been approved by the committee 18 for a total of $703,148. The total amount authorized is $312,217 for an average of $17,345. Completed and pending approval - 15, for a total of $667,328 and an average of $44,485.

On the total applications on.... You'd better let me look at this, Mr. Member.

MR. LEVI: He can't even find the figures! This has got to be incredible. I thought we were talking about millions of dollars. Now we're talking about $317,000. The minister

[ Page 1689 ]

stands up and he says: "There's a warehouse in Langley, $500,000." You didn't put the money into that. Yet you mentioned it.

I wouldn't want to say you misled this House. You certainly misled me. I wouldn't want to say that. We got the impression that you were providing all the money. All you've provided, as far as I can understand from that rather illogical statement you made just before you sat down, is $317,000. You know, Mr. Member, if you're going to be the Minister of Economic Development, the first thing you've got to do is to remember some figures. Then you're going to have to trot them out in some kind of orderly fashion so we know that your stewardship of the public's money is okay because I'm in great doubt about whether you know what you're doing. I know that my colleagues will agree that lie doesn't know what he's doing.

I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's got his deputy with him and his deputy's whispering in his ear. He's got his thumb under the words on the paper, and he's saying: "This is where it is, Mr. Minister. Now you read that out and you'll be all right." Now look, you've got to tell us. Come clean with us and tell us exactly what's going on in your ministry. Donot tell us that you have a list of figures that you read from which you cannot quote from because you've got some arrangement with the private people. If that's their money, that's fair enough. They'll quote from it.

I'm only interested in public money, not the private money. Because when you start to get into that one, it sounds a little bit like the bulk transcripts. We can't release the transcripts until we get hold of all the people and they tell us it's okay to release the transcripts which were paid for by public money. I'm not interested in private money. I'm only interested in how you are spending the taxpayer's money. The most that I got out of you in terms of the facts was 18 approvals - some $317,000, an average grant. That's what I'd like the minister to tell us. Are we talking now about outright grants, or are we talking about loans? Because he said the average payment was about $17,000. Are these grants or loans?

Now this is this new programme, presumably, which they talked about in the budget speech. Am I correct in saying that? This assistance to small business enterprise - are those grants or are they loans? Perhaps now that he's had a chance to sit with his deputy he can be more specific about that programme.

Then would he tell us what other money in his department he is paying out to business people? For instance, in my contact with B.C. Development - and they've been very reasonable - I can't get any money. That's what I want to find out. That's important. As I understand it, a gross figure of $29 million was paid out up till the end of last year. And that's what we want to know, because that's what we're here to do. I can't get too concerned about what the private industry is doing. First we'll have to get the information from the minister on what his ministry is doing. After all, he doesn't have a big department but he does have control over some resources with which he can make loans and grants.

So will the minister tell us? Is the ASEP programme a grant programme or a loan programme? Has he only made 18 approvals? What other money is his ministry giving out to assist business, whether it's large or small? That's all I want to know. That kind of information.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know really why the member wishes to make things so complicated, because what I was talking about was investment by the private sector in the province of British Columbia.

In the manufacturing industry it's up 29 per cent. Then I referred to the specific projects, which were investment by private industry because this government has created a climate in which people have faith in the province again and they are investing.

Now when you get down to the industrial subsidiary agreement that we signed, as you know, it's broken down into four parts. I'll send the member a brochure. The only one that this ministry administers is the ASEP programme, which are loans up to $35,000. They're forgivable loans. It's one of those deals where if it's successful, we don't make them pay it back. If it's unsuccessful, we make them pay it back. It doesn't make sense to me, but basically that's what it is. We copied that from Ottawa. They're what we call forgivable loans. We have firm applications, as of May 15, of 220; we have 76 approvals; we have committed $1,631, 529; and we have disbursed $215,238. Now that is the risk money that we're talking about. So the small entrepreneur, the guy with an idea that can't get it from the normal source - the bank.... On the other hand, we have the LILA programme, which is the low-interest loans, and is administered under the IDSA through the British Columbia Development Corporation. I haven't got those figures with me, but they will be issued in the annual report. Now have I answered the member's query clearly?

[ Page 1690 ]

MR. LEVI: Well, there was $1,631, 000 under the ASEP programme. How many jobs were there? The money was presumably given.... Now what are we talking about - cash flow money, the kind of thing the member for Prince Rupert was asking about? What is this money for? Is it for job generation for people to be able to keep that business going, to give them the cash flow? Perhaps the minister would elaborate on that. What are we talking about here? It's the same kind of thing that you have in here. In the forest industry you have notes about all of this investment that the forest industry is making. When we really examine it very closely, there's no real investment in terms of the creation of new jobs. It's simply the renewal of equipment. In some respects that leads to a few less jobs, because they're putting in better equipment.

So what are we doing with this programme? Is it job generating, or is it simply allowing the businesses to operate in a much more efficient way? That's okay, but tell us what it is. Let's understand what the programme is in a specific way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's for the little fellow who maybe wants to manufacture shakes or to start a jade factory - polishing jade. It's for the little entrepreneur, the guy who employs maybe three, four or five people. Now we'll go through the loans and do a count, and all of this information will be in our annual report; but right now I haven't got it. It's for the little fellow who just needs a little bid -of seed money. Maybe he hasn't got any operating capital, maybe he needs to buy a little piece of equipment, and the bank won't go. So that's what it's for.

. Now I explained this in the House one night some time ago, I remember, when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said that we weren't doing anything. I think that it's a great little programme and I'm enthused about it

It's for that guy who's got the idea but; nobody has any faith in him.

You know, if this guy was in the States, he'd go to the banking system and get it or he'd go to his friends, because down there they leave enough money in the back pocket of industry - they've got a little money to throw around once in a while. He'd go to one of his friends and say: "Hey, I've got an idea. I need to borrow $35,000." And his friend would say: "Okay, but you're going to do it my way and I'll sort of help you."

I do not like the way we're doing this, you know. We should be out of this business, but we have to live in 1977. And we have these programmes because I want to preserve the spirit of entrepreneurship in British Columbia, I want to help those people with ideas -the little family store, those types of deals - but they've got to be manufacturing.

MR. LEVI: Cottage industries.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. It's a good programme, with lots of applications - 1,700 or something like that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Inquiries? Yes, as a matter of fact, we've got over 2,857 inquiries about this programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about approvals?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Approvals? I just told you how many approvals: 76. Well, I want to tell you that's 76 more than we had last year at this time and it's 76 more than you had, because you didn't even have the agreement with Ottawa.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now don't give me all that. I'm just giving you the facts, madam.

MR. LEVI: I've got to finish with this guy because it's getting difficult.

Can the minister tell us ... ? Oh, he's leaving the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be back in one minute. My deputy will take notes.

MR. LEVI: He'll take notes, will he? If you're not back in three minutes, we're going to adjourn.

I'd like to know whether the minister, in doing a programme like this, is really just tinkering with the problem. He says he's got 2,000 inquiries and has made 76 approvals. Now if he's got 2,000 inquiries and he's already approved 76, which was of the order of 1.6 million, he's going to need a fund that runs pretty close to $25 millions, or he's not going to be able to satisfy all those people. Now I would be interested in learning from the minister just what is the nature of these inquiries.

The other thing I'd like to know is: has the minister ever had any discussions with the banking industry in this province about their doing something about making money available at lower rates for people who can't deal with this 11 and 12 per cent loan situation? There

[ Page 1691 ]

is an obligation on the part of the banks to also participate in the economic life of this province - right into the economic life and not just with other banks or multinational corporations. That's the kind of obligation the banks have. Now has the minister had any discussions with these people? Or are they, like most governments, scared to death of the banking industry, which is really getting away with murder - showing profits in every quarter and increases in excess of 30 and 32 per cent. Now what kind of discussions has he had with the banking industry? That's what's important, because they're the people who have the money. It's the people's money anyway; it's people who saved the money to put it into the banks, and then they have the privilege of the banks loaning it back to them at 11 and 12 per cent. We've got to involve the banking industry in this whole question of economic development, and the important thing is....

The minister is now back, and I shall now put the question to him: has the minister had any discussion with the banking industry about what role they should play in respect to economic development, both on the large scale and on the small scale - for the small businessman - in terms of making loans available at a better rate? On the basis of the 2,000 inquiries that he's had - whether these are inquiries or applications for loans under this programme - as I pointed out when he was not in the House, he'd probably need about a $25 million fund if all those applications are possible. So tell us the nature of the applications, these inquiries. No, don't get up yet, just take it easy. He's very keen to get up. You know, we finally sparked him; we've got him going a little bit this afternoon. He's back to the old miserable self that he-is when he really gets going, so he's going to give us some really interesting comment.

Let me just go over it. What is the nature of the inquiries? What is the maximum amount of money that you've got in the fund? And what have you done about talking to the banking industry? Are you prepared to put them on the line and ask: "What are you prepared to do for the economy of British Columbia, particularly in relation to small business people?" Has he had those discussions? Now the minister is going through some more information; he's got to find some information. But he should tell us about this. He's hit on a programme that he says they've initiated; it's under the federal-provincial agreement; it's an interesting programme. But you know, drawing information out of this minister is like drawing teeth. You'd think he'd want to shout it from the rooftops.

So tell us, Mr. Minister, what is the nature of the 2,000 inquiries? What is the maximum amount of money in the fund? How many are you going to be able to deal with? Have you done anything for the banking industry? Those are the three questions I'd like answered.

MR. BARBER: Does the minister care to reply to my colleague's questions at the moment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the minister has some difficulty hearing. Would you like to take the floor for an hour, and if he indicates he's getting up I'll recognize him at that time.

MR. BARBER: I would like to talk, if I may, about problems of economic development in the capital city area. In particular I'd like to talk about the progress made since a group of us got together more than a year ago to create what is now known as the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission. I'd like to thank the minister for the funding provided by his ministry to that commission; at the moment half of it is provided by local government in Victoria and the other half by the minister's ministry. We're very glad for his response, very glad for his support and look forward to more of it in the future.

The Economic Development Commission was established a year ago January, and people who are most responsible for that include Scott Wallace, who was, as you know, at the time the member for Oak Bay, and Mr. Frank Carson, who hoped to become the member for Oak Bay, and who was certainly, in any case, deserves a great deal of credit for the excellent work he did in putting it together.

In December of last year the commission was able to hire its first full-time employee, Mr. Barry Mayhew, as economic development commissioner, and again his salary like that of the whole budget comes 50 per cent from this minister's ministry. Once more I should like to go on record as recognizing that Mr. Mayhew is doing a first-class job for the people of Victoria. He is and was an excellent choice, he works very hard and very long and is gaining weekly in respect and stature and in his ability to communicate with business and labour both in greater Victoria concerning problems we have here in economic development.

We have one particular problem that is extremely difficult to resolve in the greater Victoria area, and it's about this that I want particularly to address myself to the minister today. We have very little land that's appropriate for economic development. We have very little land that's appropriate for warehou-

[ Page 1692 ]

sing, new subdivisions or new industry at all. Nowadays, I think most people would agree that only a nut would propose to remove farmland from the agricultural reserve, and because of the essential nature of the land around the capital city area one of our deepest problems is that the only vacant land in any significant area lies in farmland in the AIR. No one is going to propose removing farmland from the AIR for development purposes.

Therefore we are all the more restricted here at the bottom of an island by geography alone, as well as the difficulty in obtaining land from other more conventional sources -farmland at one time having been one of those sources - in our attempts to find suitable accommodation for the warehousing, the industrial and the business interests.

A couple of us have been working over the last several weeks on two proposals, one of which I expect the minister is familiar with himself. I'll give a little background for a moment. As the minister may be aware, the municipality of Saanich recently rejected a proposal basically known as, if you will, the Royal Oak warehouse proposal, to convert significant acreage in the Royal Oak district of Saanich for largely warehousing, business and light industrial purposes. They rejected that because the neighbours didn't want it; they rejected it because they didn't feel they wanted to pay what they believed would be the costs of establishing such a development. For reasons good or bad, as you judge it, that project is now by and large defunct.

The problem is, and Saanich knows it, that when you reject the opportunity for significant growth and clean development in one area, you are obligated to provide some alternative opportunity elsewhere. The need is clear and no one denies it. The need is obvious and no one disputes it. The warehousing, the industrial and the business needs are real and in no sense imaginary at all. Saanich, therefore, like the other municipalities in greater Victoria is confronted with the need of finding appropriate space with which to say to business which wishes to locate or expand here: "You can't have choice A, but here is choice B, and we'd like you to take a look at it." The mayor of Saanich, Mr. Couvelier, has indicated the possibility of assembling land on another site that is not by and large AIR land, and that he believes would have a chance of making it through council and through the neighbourhood interests as well.

There is some land in Victoria to which I would hope the minister would draw a great deal of his own ministry's attention. It's land which will become surplus, which is in its present function obsolete. I'm referring, of course, to the Work Point land over here presently owned by the federal government and used for military purposes, and which is in the process of being declared surplus. I'm working from memory at the moment, but I believe there are some 45 acres there, less than 50 acres as I recall it.

I've had a conversation with Mr. Morrison of the British Columbia Development Corporation, a man whom I respect and like very much, who has told me about interest that has been shown by the corporation in obtaining from the federal government, when that land is finally declared surplus, use and control of it for economic purposes here in Victoria. I don't wish to put words into Mr. Morrison's mouth, and I don't want to do so in any way at this point, but a number of ideas clearly are possible there.

The location, just across the Inner Harbour, is superb for economic development purposes. Access by water, even by air with the heliport nearby, and certainly by road, is just excellent. Tug and barge access is first class; we already have it with Seaspan just half a mile further over towards the working harbour. The fact that the land is already in public hands federally suggests that there is no reason why the federal government could not be persuaded to transfer that land to provincial hands.

There is no further reason that occurs to me, at least, why the BCDC might not want to entertain, through assistance that the Economic Development Commission here in Victoria might want to provide, proposals for lease or purchase - however you care to do it - of that land for warehousing, light industrial purposes and business and office-space purposes. We have here the opportunity to secure for the benefit of the economy of greater Victoria the last significant parcel of land downtown for clean, desperately needed development purposes. If the federal government cannot be persuaded, we should raise one heck of a fuss, because they should be. The land is surplus, by and large. They will not need it even five, certainly not 10 years from now. The land is ours in the sense that it already belongs to the people. The fact that it belongs to the people federally should be no impediment to the people provincially having use of it. The British Columbia Development Corporation is in a unique and appropriate position to negotiate for the transfer of this land, and I'm privately informed that many of those conversations have been carried on. As a member for the capital city, I should like to go on record at, this moment as strongly endorsing the principle of obtaining these lands, strongly

[ Page 1693 ]

endorsing the principle that the Development Corporation might be the best instrument for their use, strongly endorsing the principle that the council of Esquimalt and of the city of Victoria must, of course, be involved in negotiations and must, of course, give their approval to such proposals as may go forward for that land. I would further recommend that the Economic Development Commission of Greater Victoria is itself an appropriate means of sounding out with business and labour here in the capital city area interest they might have in such a proposal.

I've received a note saying that Work Point is vital in case we're ever attacked by a warship. Well, 50 years ago I guess that might have been likely.

Anyway, that's the first proposal that I wish to draw to the minister's attention and it is by no means unique to myself at all. I'm well aware that considerable work has gone on elsewhere, but 1, for one, wish to stand in support of it, again stressing the necessity of negotiating from the beginning with the local councils involved - those of Victoria and Esquimalt - and with the uniquely appropriate local instrument for determining local interest and opinion, that being the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission. We've got the land, theoretically; we should have the land tomorrow. Business and labour need it both for the development purposes here that we all seek to obtain and have results here in greater Victoria.

One more matter though, if I may, I'd like to raise. There is another aspect of economic development that concerns us in Victoria and it's related as well to the inquiries that some of us, including myself, have been making in the Royal Oak proposal, the Work Point proposal and so on. It's related to statements made by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . Victoria uniquely has the capacity to be a centre for research, for a certain level of high technology, as the jargon goes, that would serve and substantiate industry and centres of learning that are already here. We have already in Victoria the Patricia Bay Oceanographic Institute, we have Pearson College, we have the University of Victoria, we have Camosun College, we have at DND the Dockyard and the Pacific Naval Labs, and we have the Forest Research lab out on Burnside Road West.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We have clearly, by virtue of our people, our history and our climate, a great many attractive choices, a great many very attractive come-ons that could be made to those areas and those industries principally interested in research. Once more, however, the problem is land. If you invite someone to come here, if you invite the federal National Research Council to establish an institute of toxicology here, as there should be and as has been argued there should be, where are you going to put the thing? Again, no one except a madman is going to propose that you put it on farmland. Presumably no one wants to put it on barges out in the water. Somehow or another we have to find land for it. Well, again, the answer suggests itself clearly. Some combination of effort has to be obtained that would put together the interests of research, private and public, at that facility best suited to complement and support those research interests. We have the facility. It's the University of Victoria. It has acreage to spare. More than a third of the land presently owned by the University of Victoria is not: being developed or likely to be in the near future. I met with the president of the university some weeks ago and put to him verbally that proposal and pointed out some options, at least based on my own research, that would suggest that here at the university whose land we already own and do not need to buy again, and which has a great library and several first-class faculties, we have the opportunity to combine those interests of public and private research there on that campus and do it together. Again, I don't want to put words in Dr. Petch's mouth, but he was most enthused, had already given it considerable thought, has already discussed the matter with his own superiors and is, I understand, in the process of negotiating now with the federal government for a National Institute of Toxicology. That's no secret, and I'm not spilling any beans. It's been reported before.

Once more, though, I would encourage the minister to ask or insist of the Development Corporation that they, once again, have an appropriate role in developing what could be aesthetically very pleasing, businesslike, most important and here in Victoria a most necessary option for another kind of economic development there at the campus of the University of Victoria. I'm told that in Saskatchewan to date some $50 million of private money has gone into facilities, laboratories and other buildings on the campuses of the University of Saskatchewan in a joint effort sponsored with the leadership of the Saskatchewan Department of Education and its equivalent of our Development Corporation.

The university in Saskatchewan has been open to it. Enterprise, private and public, has

[ Page 1694 ]

been open to it. Research, private and public, has now funded, I'm told, some $50 million for facilities there on their campuses. The questions of academic integrity and autonomy have been raised and answered. The questions of academic freedom and the freedom of people in research, the freedom of scholars to be active, independent of government or business interests, have been raised and answered satisfactorily. The same questions will be raised here and they are reasonable ones. Scholars have a right since medieval times to demand freedom of inquiry. They have every right to do that. It's part of the great civilizing tradition that they do so. Those arguments, that conflict, will develop here too. But there's no problem. It has developed elsewhere and been resolved elsewhere.

I spent time on two campuses of the University of California. Once again, they found a means of melding the public and the private research interests. They are physically located on the campus to support and substantiate both the university's and the businesses' interest without conflict, without competition and with, in fact, a level of very practical co-operation that was unprecedented in that area.

The final suggestion that I would like to make and have the minister comment upon is that of through the Development Corporation, the board of governors of the University of Victoria and the economic development commission finding the means of creating such a team as may be required to allow us to use an asset that at the moment is badly underused, to allow us to use land that is already ours and badly needed for these purposes as well.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, what the member has been talking about is our concept of Discovery Park which we have started in Vancouver. I want to state this very Emphatically: Discovery Park is not one particular area. Discovery Park can be part of an industry somewhere knit together with the university. Discovery Park can be at the University of Victoria. Discovery Park can be at Simon Fraser University. It can be at the University of British Columbia.

The concept of Discovery Park, on which I'm working very closely with the Minister of Education is to knit - just what you're saying -and give students the opportunity. That's why we have our scholarship fund going. We're paying a portion. I see the federal government has come along and is doing the same thing. But the universities have been invited in on this.

I want to carry your concept one step further because I don't think people realize the research facility that exists on the peninsula. I am referring to the oceanographic research of the federal government. I'm talking about research in agriculture. I'm talking about our forestry research here. What we're trying to do right now is to get all of these people together, because one doesn't know the other exists, as I understand it. The research that [illegible] done is to knit them all together so that they can really talk about the research and the talent that is here on the peninsula, so it can be put to use to develop high technology industry for British Columbia. You've got the same opportunities in Saanich and the islands and in Victoria that you've got in Vancouver, because you've got the climate, you've got the amenities and people want to live here. What we have to do.... It's not going to happen overnight, and maybe I can be condemned for not making as much progress as we should be making. I want to tell you we have started and I'm convinced wore going in the right direction. I think we can be bullish about it. It takes a combination of everybody to put the thing together.

With regard to your suggestion for the DND property, you've already talked to Newell about it. The chairman of the board of the Development Corporation, I presume he will take some action. I will certainly follow it up.

We are also trying to put together, as I understand it.... I'll just read this report on the latest land status report on Saanich, dated May 12. 1 got it from the meeting that I attended last Friday, and it says:

"Saanich - this municipality is part of the Capital Regional District. The corporation for some time has been under pressure to create industrial land in the region. At the present, no lands are available and the existing industries are moving to the lower mainland or further up island. We have managed to find land surplus to the needs of the Attorney-General's office. Several meetings with Mayor Couvelier and council have resulted in progress being made toward an agreement between our respective parties. There is considerable work to be done and bylaws passed before commencement of construction is possible. In order that the time spent on this project is accounted for, Saanich has agreed to pay up to $5,000 for preliminary design, cost of site construction schedule and cash flow effect on Saanich. Two properties are being considered. Purchase of the properties will ultimately be in the name of Saanich and cash advanced by

[ Page 1695 ]

Saanich by way of mortgage to BCDC. We're talking about the Wilkinson Jail property, net acreage 68.5, and west side adjacent to the above, 35.5 acres, for a total of 104 net acres. BCDC will be conducting a market survey upon completion of zoning prior to full commitment."

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the Railwest car plant is weighing heavily upon my mind. As the minister indicated earlier this afternoon, he wakes up at night screaming about Duke Point. I could describe a similar situation with Railwest. I'm looking over the Ernst and Ernst report that was before the royal commission.

I've just finished canvassing the village of Fort Nelson's chamber of commerce critique of the McKenzie Royal Commission report. A little chamber of commerce in Fort Nelson, in my view, has effectively exposed the McKenzie royal commission as being incompetent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, those are pretty strong words.

MR. LAUK: That's very strong, but I must say I have not heard a reply to their critique on the recommendations on the Fort Nelson extension.

The lack of information before the McKenzie commission is alarming. Again, I'm looking through the Ernst and Ernst report and the Sinclair report, which are simply chartered accountants' analyses of discount rates and the relative options of whether the BCR should purchase leased old equipment, renew old leases, lease new equipment or buy new equipment.

All of the jiggery-pokery going on fails to analyse the situation in a total overview way. If the commission can be discredited, as it has been, on the Fort Nelson extension, surely to goodness the minister can look again at the Railwest decision based on the royal commission's report. We can't sit on our hands on these things. If the royal commission has failed to do its job and has not done it adequately, it should be immediately discharged of its responsibility and the government should take back its responsibility to make these decisions. The delays have cost us greatly in this province.

The Ernst and Ernst report, by the way, is contradictory to the Sinclair report. It's not as if we're just taking the unanimous view of experts on this situation. Even if we're just going to look at the financial benefits of leasing old or new equipment, or buying new equipment for the BGR - a narrow view I might say - the experts are not of one mind. I remember that the Ernst people who were cross-examined before the McKenzie royal commission were cross-examined vigorously. They were almost attacked by counsel. I couldn't conceive of why that would happen. And by the way, they did little to discredit the Ernst report, in my view, except obviously in the mind of the royal commission. The recommendation of the royal commission was a disaster. In my view it should be looked at again. The recommendation of the royal commission on the Fort Nelson extension was a disaster, and indeed bungled, if even a portion of the information of the chamber of commerce at Fort Nelson and the IWA brief is correct. No alternative financial analysis took place. It was slipshod in the worst possible way.

I know the government indicated about four and a half weeks ago they would have a decision in six weeks. There are no rumblings and no signs that any decision on the Fort Nelson extension is going to take place shortly. People are very alarmed at this situation and the inaction of this government.

I've demonstrated this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, the opportunities for the Railwest plant to be reopened. Call it the Social Credit plant, call it the Don Phillips Memorial Carloading Facility; whatever you like; take all the credit. But for heaven's sake, make a sound economic decision and not a crass political one.

Mr. Chairman, there are many points that the minister has not considered this afternoon. Perhaps in later discussion, we'll be able to discuss them. The one thing that I would heartily recommend is that when he receives the NDP policy paper, that dynamic document that will go down in history as one of the most progressive and far-reaching economic strategies in the history of the province -when he receives a complimentary copy - I wish he would pay particular attention to the recommendation that we have small economic councils with representatives of the community, representatives of labour and management, civic officials and so on sit down and have a local, regional forum on economic strategy. Not that they would set down a blueprint that the government and industry would have to accept for all time, but we should involve those regions, through their communities and their institutions, in economic planning that will lead to the economic decisions that will affect their daily lives.

It would be very helpful in Stewart, for example. As my colleague for Prince Rupert during question period was pointing out, I think it's clear that the ministry was not

[ Page 1696 ]

acting in a very aggressive way in Stewart. We've had lengthy notice of the problem, yet no alternative strategy has existed. I asked the supplementary: "Has the minister revived the old proposal of the veneer plant there?" He says, well, he hasn't heard of one, but he'll dig it out. This kind of inaction surely discredits the minister. He must be alarmed at that kind of credibility in the community. He's got to be there. He should be up there in his Sikorski helicopter right away, as soon as he heard there was a problem in Stewart. He should have had his officials up there. He should have had study teams, he should have had alternative proposals. He should have consulted the Minister of Forests, he should have consulted the Minister of Mines in an emergency situation to preserve a community in the province of British Columbia. What's he doing? He's shrugging his shoulders and saying:" Ho hum, metal prices and so on...." He's a cornucopia of misinformation.

This afternoon in question period he said metal prices are going up. There has been a modest increase in copper prices but unfortunately not sufficient to have these decisions turned around. This afternoon there was an unfortunate news story in The Vancouver Sun:

"Gibraltar Mines Ltd. has announced it will suspend operations Friday at its open pit copper mine near Williams Lake. Bill Thompson, spokesman for Placer Development, a major shareholder in Gibraltar, said Wednesday: 'The mine will be shut down indefinitely because of low copper prices and a collective bargaining impasse.' "

Do you know, Mr. Chairman, there are 400 people employed there? Isn't it interesting that the backbenchers, some of them from the north, couldn't care less? They have absolutely no concern for these people. They're smug. They've feathered their nests. They couldn't care less.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are discussing the minister's estimates.

MR. LAUK: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. They couldn't care less. They're very, very selfish people indeed.

There are 500 employees; 400 of them are unionists. There has been a breakdown in contract talks. The union has not struck in the current dispute in 1978, but the contract negotiations have come to an impasse. Gibraltar is obviously acting very petulantly in this matter. What is the ministry going to do about it?

Have they had any notice? Has the minister consulted with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources? Are there any alternative plans? Are we going to allow a company to shut down a plant and put 500 employees out of work because of petulance over collective bargaining?

It's interesting that Gribraltar doesn't think that metal prices are so good. Has the minister consulted with them about what figures he is using as opposed to those Gibraltar is using? I'd like to know why the ministry is just not on top of these situations. We are talking about human beings. We are talking about families. I hope the minister does something about it. I know he said this afternoon: "We just don't hold meetings for the sake of saying we held meetings."

We want you to do more than hold meetings. We want you to do something about it. You just can't continually throw up your hands and say: "Oh, well, it's the private sector. Oh, well, it's Ottawa; they've got control of tariffs. Oh, well, it's this. Oh, well, it's that." We can't afford to sit back any longer, because the B.C. economy is shutting down plant by plant, mine by mine.

I repeat that the minister should seriously reconsider the appointment to the royal commission. The royal commission's report on the Fort Nelson extension has been thoroughly debunked by subsequent briefs both by the IWA and the village chamber of commerce. The Ernst and Ernst report and the Sinclair reports are not consistent. Indeed, the royal commission in the Railwest investigation did not look at the overview.

There's a similar problem in Fort Nelson. Will the minister contact the potash corporation of Saskatchewan? There's another prospect for the use of railcars manufactured in the province of British Columbia. He still hasn't answered those questions. But he makes big promises and hopes for manna from heaven, I suppose, because nothing he is doing is solving the problems that have been raised.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister some pointed questions for which I will get some direct answers.

First of all, the total cost of the increase in your budget has multiplied fourfold; it's up to $29 million. No doubt a large portion of that is contained in the $14 million federal-provincial cost-sharing programme. Would you please tell me what percentage of that $14 million is coming directly from the federal government?

[ Page 1697 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's 50 per cent.

MR. STEPHENS: If we look at vote 48, there is an increase in office expense of $4,000, from $3,500 to $7,500. I'd like to know how you justify that. What is the extra cost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have it for you in just a minute.

MR. STEPHENS: Thank you. Earlier, when you were, I think, speaking in answer to one of the members of the official opposition, you talked about having a list before you of certain matters. When you were asked to table them, your answer was: "Do your own research." I'm a little concerned about that answer, Mr. Chairman. I thought that the research of the minister was my research and the research of the people of British Columbia. I would ask the minister if he would now reconsider his position on that. If he doesn't wish to table that information, would he at least please tell us what that information is that he was talking about?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The information we have is information that we have sought out from individual investments in the province, and the information was given to us in confidence. In other words, if a person has a project -supposing you were building a factory or a warehouse or something - they have divulged to us the individual cost of that project. Now I said I would make the information available without the costs of the projects. For instance, if you're in a town and you're putting up a warehouse, you might not want to tell your competition who's building another ware house down the street the cost of your ware house, because you're going to have to rent it out.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'll make the information minus the actual costs available. And just what it really is is an outline of all the building permits in the various areas. They do have the cost figures. Now that information has been given to, us; it's available. If you want to go to Oak Bay, for r instance, or any municipality.... But we have the cost figures and I'm just reluctant to give them out because, as I say, every project when you're investing your own money - and they have divulged to us the actual cost.... We're reluctant to give that out.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if the information that he's reluctant to give out is information which he has gathered from the municipal governments or information he gathered directly from the people who applied for the permit.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The dollar and cents figures are mostly by direct contact.

MR. STEPHENS: Direct contact with whom?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With the person who made the investment.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, the minister said earlier in talking about his trip to Europe that, he had made many contacts and those contacts have been followed up. I'd like the minister to tell us precisely what those contacts are and what follow-up has been made on those contacts.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I outlined to the House earlier on in the debate, Mr. Chairman, we have one economic officer working out of B.C. House in London by the name of Lance Howey. We're planning on putting in another trade development officer to assist him with the smaller contacts. In other words, he'll be handling the larger contacts, the banking interests and the major companies, and we're putting another one in to handle the smaller companies that are interested in going into joint ventures and so forth, so they are being followed up.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer is not responsive to the question. The question I asked the minister is that he said that he, on his trip to Europe, had made certain contacts which are now followed up. I want to know precisely what contacts, with whom you made them, and precisely what follow-up you have made on those contacts.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We made a number of contacts. I haven't got the list here of all the contacts we made, but they're being followed up by Lance Howey, who is our man working the Continent out of B.C. House in London.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can stand still for that. The minister has made the statement. He volunteered the information that his trip to Europe resulted in a number of contacts and that those contacts were followed up. Now surely he can tell us what contacts he made. That's all I want to know. You've mentioned the contacts. What were those contacts and what follow-up have you made on them?

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the minister is not going to provide the information on that.

[ Page 1698 ]

I can only presume that the minister made no contacts; he certainly made no contact which he's prepared to indicate that is of any value to this province.

Now the minister also stated that he'd been to Japan during the past two years. I'd like to ask the minister now: What precisely did you do in Japan? What contacts did you make in Japan and what followup have you made on those contacts?

Mr. Chairman, apparently the minister is remaining silent on that one, so my suggestion....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, only one person can be recognized standing at a time, and you were still on your feet. Until you sit down, I cannot recognize anyone else.

MR. STEPHENS: The minister is not showing any indication of having any interest in this debate at all. If he shows any interest in getting up, I'd be just delighted to sit down and listen to him.

Now I will say what I was going to say: it is quite apparent that the minister has misled us. He's told us that he has made contacts in Europe and in Japan, and now he refuses to confirm that statement by telling us what those contacts were. I think the people in this province - and it should be very clear in Hansard - should know that this minister is refusing to answer these questions.

I'd like to ask the minister about the Alcan pipeline. Can he confirm, in fact, whether he knows whether the Foothills Consortium is still as keen about this plan as before? Have you had any contact with the Foothills Consortium? Have there been any negotiations that , would give you comfort that this pipeline is going to go ahead?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let's get back to these overseas missions first of all. As the member knows, the contacts that governments make are of a general nature - attending business meetings, talking with bankers and with industrialists. I haven't got at my fingertips every person that we contacted in Europe, but I would be quite happy to give you a list of my itinerary in both Japan and in Korea and how it's being followed up. I did tell you that we have an economic.... We have a person working in Europe who is following up these contacts.

With regard to vote 48, code 30, I'm advised by my deputy that in the last three years this has been understated, and the new estimate is closer to the actual requirements of the office. With regard to the Alcan pipeline, again, I outlined earlier - I don't know where the member was; I guess he wasn't in the House - that we held a seminar on the Alcan pipeline in Vancouver a week ago last Wednesday. I had conversations with both Mr. Blair and Mr. Phillips, and certainly there doesn't seem to be any negativism on their part that the project isn't going ahead.

MR. STEPHENS: I'd like to just advise the minister that my information is that a number of people who were originally interested in the consortium have now withdrawn. Can you confirm or deny that information, or do you know?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I said, I've already stated that in my conversations with both Ed Phillips of Westcoast and Bob Blair of Foothills, they have stated to me that there are no downsides to the project so far as they can see. They're keeping a daily monitor on the energy bill going before Congress. There have been some delays in that area, but they're confident that the energy bill will pass and, indeed, they did not advise me that there were any negative aspects to the project whatsoever.

MR. STEPHENS: I presume, therefore, that what the minister is saying - and I'll ask him to correct me if I'm misinterpreting him - is that he has no information whatever that any of the original participants in the Foothills Consortium have withdrawn.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, again, the member is not going to put words in my mouth. Whatever way you interpret what I said is up to you, but don't put words in my mouth.

MR. STEPHENS: Perhaps then the minister would like to answer the question directly so we won't have to guess. Do you have any information at all which would indicate that some of the original participants in that consortium have lost interest and pulled out?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I made my statement about what I was advised by Mr. Blair and Mr. Phillips, and I think that that should be perfectly clear to the member for Oak Bay. I don't know what he is trying to get at but, as I say, I don't want him putting words in my mouth.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I'd have difficulty putting words into his mouth; his mouth is pretty full already.

[ Page 1699 ]

I'd like to talk for a minute about the federal contributions to this province, or perhaps the lack of it. My understanding is that the federal subsidies through DREE, et cetera, to this province over the next five years will amount to about $170 million. My information also leads me to believe that in the past three weeks alone almost $500 million has been pumped by the federal government into the province of Quebec under a similar scheme. Can the minister stand and tell us that he's exhausted all possibilities of getting more funds for this province? We're falling so far behind the other provinces in getting these funds. What is he doing to try and catch up?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little bit Leary here of getting caught up in a federal election campaign. We have made what I consider a fair amount of progress in the two and a half years that we've been government in our negotiations with Ottawa. There seems to be, once in a while, a little bit of insinuation from different political parties that we haven't done enough. We've been accused by some other political parties of getting in bed with the federal Liberals. Now I want to state here very emphatically that the province of British Columbia is dealing with the government of Canada, not with any political party. Secondly I want to state very emphatically that it has been the attitude of the government of the province of British Columbia in their negotiations with the federal government that we would do our homework, we would go to Ottawa, and we would negotiate, and we would stop using a two-by four negotiating through the newspapers, et cetera. We have been very successful in that regard as well. The member asked me if I'm satisfied. I want to tell the member that I'm never satisfied. We can always negotiate more. We have some projects at the present time under negotiation with Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member knows that we're negotiating with regard to the Alcan pipeline. We're negotiating with a new external trade agreement underway. I'm also quite happy to say that hopefully I will be in Ottawa in the very near future, probably next week if my estimates get finished, negotiating with the federal government a new DREE tourism agreement.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I very much appreciated the political speech from the minister and I'm certainly happy that he's so happy with himself in his attempts to gain a better deal for British Columbians. But that doesn't answer the question I asked. That is: how come the province of Quebec can get $500 million out of Ottawa in three weeks, and in five years we're only getting $170 million. Now I think you should address yourself to that question and not talk about political campaigns or anything else. Just answer that question. Why are you failing down?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if the member wishes to take the attitude that we have fallen down in our negotiations with Ottawa, he should do a little studying in the history book, because we've been fairly successful. As a matter of fact, we have been more successful than any government previously in British Columbia. It's all right for the member to stand up here - he doesn't know his history about what has happened in British Columbia -and say that we haven't done enough. But I want to tell you, it's historic. Who will identify what the cost of Confederation is to the province of British Columbia? I want to tell you it was this ministry who said that we were full of prunes. It was that member over there for North Vancouver-Capilano. But I want to tell you that when the figures were released by Stats Canada three months after we'd done our homework, the figures were there. It cost British Columbia $500 million to belong to Confederation. But I also want you to listen to the fact that we are Canadians, and pay some attention to our economic strategy - the best paper that was presented in Ottawa. I'll tell you, we'll take a back seat to nobody but nobody when it comes to dealing with Ottawa and the progress we've made. Now you go ahead and make all the rhetoric you want to about it, but we have made big progress, m y friend. Great progress!

MR. STEPHENS: Once again I want to thank the minister for that magnificent speech, but I'm going to ask him once more. You talk about Confederation and being Canadian. British Columbia taxpayers pay money to the federal government. How can you sit there and be responsible for your department and tell us'that the province of Quebec is entitled to $500 million in three weeks, and British Columbia gets $170 million in five years? Now if you call that good bargaining, I'd hate to see bad bargaining.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get involved in a sort of federal election campaign here. There are have provinces and there are have-not

[ Page 1700 ]

provinces. We've done a better job in negotiating with Ottawa than any other provincial government in history. But I want to tell you, if the member would do a little arithmetic, and if every province in Canada took as much drain on the federal treasury as Quebec and the Maritimes and the rest of the have-not provinces, I'll tell you, there wouldn't be much left for anybody else. The money has to come from somewhere. I'll say again that we've done a good job in negotiating with the federal government.

But this isn't going to solve the problem. If you take a little time, my friend, to study the economic strategy paper that we put down.... That has got to be what we really have to do in Canada. I'll send you another copy. Have you not got a copy of it? Sit down and do a little study. It might open your eyes.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, it's quite apparent that the minister is going to continue to evade this one as he's evaded all the others. So we'll just move along here a little bit.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about the Alcan pipeline. The minister said that he's negotiating now with the federal government on behalf of this province on the Alcan pipeline. I'd like to know just exactly what's going on and so would the people in the north of this province. Why is it a secret? Why will you not disclose to the people of this province what you are bargaining on? The Conservative Member of Parliament for your area has attempted to co-operate with you and get information from you, because the people of the north need to know what environmental factors are being considered. They want some input into these decisions. What is the cloak of secrecy and what's the purpose behind it? Let's hear you on that. Why won't you tell us now what you're doing?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty of this debate. I'd like the member for Oak Bay to explain just how the member for Peace River-Prince George is co-operating with the MIA for that area in doing anything in Ottawa. Now if you want to get down to a debate, my friend, on what your Conservative member in the Peace River-Prince George riding is doing, let's get right at it, because I'm ready. I'll tell you a few facts, my friend, and you'll be sorry you ever brought up the subject on the floor of this House. But as I told you, I do not intend to get into any great debate with you in the federal election at all. I told you also - and I'll tell you again - when we negotiate with Ottawa, we negotiate with the federal government. We don't negotiate in the newspaper or over the radio. We're negotiating with them. When negotiations break down, we'll tell you all about it. But as long as we're negotiating in good faith, those negotiations will be carried on in the same manner that we're carrying them on.

MR. STEPHENS: In secret.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You want to call it in secret, fine.

MR. LEA: What do you call it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I say, as I said before, that we do our homework. We go down....

AN HON. MEMBER: Behind closed doors.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't care what you call it. All I'm saying is that the way we've been negotiating has been fairly successful.

MR. COCKE: What did you get?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you want to ask the question? I've got it right here. I'll tell you every programme exactly, and certainly there can always be more. How high is high?

AN HON. MEMBER: flow low is low?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you want to enter a debate, you and I better go and sit down in your office and I'll tell you a few facts of life. I'm not going to get sucked into a debate on the federal election.

MR. STEPHENS: It was the minister who challenged me to a debate and I accepted. I'll accept it here or I'll accept it in your riding. But let's make this clear: if you want to get on a public platform and enter into a debate, you're not going to be able to hide behind your veil of secrecy. We're going to find out what you're doing and why you're doing it - and your refusal to tell the people of your riding and of this province exactly what's going on.

You won't co-operate with the federal representative or anybody else. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Yes, I accept your challenge to a debate. You name the place and the time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you that I'll be responsible for my actions when the election rolls around. You tell the member from

[ Page 1701 ]

Peace River-Prince George to be responsible for his actions. You ask the member how often he's tried to contact me. Ask him how many times he's been in my office.

MR. STEPHENS: I take it that my acceptance of your challenge has now been put aside. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know where I stand on this debate challenge he issued me. I accepted it. Is he going through with it or isn't he?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister now whether or not his ministry is carrying on any negotiations with the federal government to get any subsidies for B.C. Rail, particularly for the resource lines such as Fort Nelson. Are you carrying on a direct negotiation for that purpose?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're doing a lot of negotiating with Ottawa.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister: are you negotiating for some assistance for B.C. Rail? That's an important part of British Columbia, that Fort Nelson line. Are you asking for help or aren't you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.

MR. STEPHENS: What kind of help do you expect to get? What progress are you making?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we expect to get a lot of things. We're making pretty good progress.

MR. STEPHENS: It's quite apparent that no progress at all is being made. So I think I will now defer to the next speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I've made any remarks on these estimates in this session, so I want to start out by telling the minister that he has a first rate ministry in welcoming his deputy minister here, and in speaking very highly of the officials in his department. I now want to go on and discuss the minister's salary vote.

Mr. Chairman, there are several things I'd like to ask the minister. I'd like to tell him that the economic climate in British Columbia needs improvement. There's uncertainty around. And I say this not as a criticism; I say this as a fact. I was very saddened the other day to read in one of the real estate column of The Vancouver Sun, I think it was, just an offhand remark saying that Calgary's become the head-office capital of western Canada, and it went on to discuss other things. I was shocked by that, because I have heard of firms moving to Calgary, but I had not realized that it had come to that magnitude. I visited Calgary a couple of months ago and lo and behold the skyline is covered with construction cranes. It occurred to me that the provincial bird of Alberta is the crane, and the provincial bird of British Columbia is the turkey.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The minister's a turkey; our bird is a seagull.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The Social Credit seagull has turned into an albatross, says the member.

But, Mr. Chairman, on the subject of climate, I noted the other day a speech that someone had to make in Montreal with respect to the movement of head offices from that city to Toronto. He made the very proper point when he spoke of the costs of doing business in Montreal as opposed to Toronto. It doesn't have that much to do with language, said this particular spokesman; it has to do with the fact that if you're doing business in Quebec you have to pay higher taxes both as to personal and as to corporate. Naturally the people who are deciding where to locate, whether their head offices or the factories or whatever, are looking for a favourable climate.

The minister knows that the rate of personal income tax in British Columbia is 46 per cent add-on to basic federal tax, and the rate next door in Alberta is 38.5 per cent - a very distinct difference. The minister knows that corporation tax in British Columbia ranges from 12 to 15 percentage points. He knows that next door in Alberta, it's 11 percentage points. Those are the basic kinds of things. The sales tax of course is zero there and 5 per cent here. But we have lowered our sales tax. It's difficult to go much further. We don't have that petroleum revenue they have. But in this question of the corporation and personal income taxes, we are out of line with our major competitor right now. I know the constraints of revenue, but I would hope that the minister would be prepared to, in this debate, tell us that insofar as his ministry's concerned it's a target over some reasonable time horizon to bring us into line with our competitor next door and say to the businesses in British Columbia: "Stay here; don't consider moving. We want you here and we're going to get into line just as quickly as we can. We want new industry here and we are going to

[ Page 1702 ]

provide the climate for it."

I'd like the minister to be a little bit specific about the economic blueprint that the Premier frequently speaks of. I can't be any more detailed in my questioning than that, because I don't know what the economic blueprint is. I've never seen it and yet the Premier refers to an economic blueprint. I wonder if the minister could tell us where we can find this. Where is it laid out? I presume such an economic blueprint would tell us something about the industrial strategy of the provincial government - the proper opportunities by sector for developing manufacturing in British Columbia and so on. What stage is this at? The Premier has told us it exists. Well, if it exists, I haven't seen it published. Is it under development in his ministry?

I want to ask him one simple question about a big potential for British Columbia: are there any negotiations underway for a new smelter, or smelter expansion, with Alcan or anyone else at Kitimat?

I want to make my annual representation with respect to the need in British Columbia for an economic council to deal particularly with the unique....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's my annual request, Mr. Member. I can't help it if the NDP convention takes three years to catch up with my economic council suggestion. Read my old speeches and adopt them as follows.

AN HON. MEMBER: Want to join the party?

MR. GIBSON: You adopt my speeches, then we'll talk.

Mr. Chairman, British Columbia has a unique economy. The minister knows that. We are high in primary industry, we are high in tertiary industry and we're low in secondary industry. There are reasons for that. We need an economic council that is capable of giving to the public advice independent of the government -much as I respect the Ministry of Economic Development. Not all of the data that is generated there gets out to the public; much of it is kept internal. We should have an independent economic advisory unit in this province that can improve the public dialogue -both in the press and in this chamber - by the provision of factual information and studies into areas of significant importance for this province.

I would like to ask the minister about the Fort Nelson extension because I am extremely concerned with the report that was brought in by the royal commission. The clock is ticking on this one. It seems to me it was about four weeks ago the Premier advised that the decision would be made within six weeks. This report was given to the government at the end of the year and not made public for over three months.

The commission report is replete with figures forecasting massive deficits if this extension goes ahead. As a matter of fact, in the conclusion section the report speaks of "the anticipated cost of the extension to the public aver the next five years - that is to say some $60 million to $70 million and perhaps more (a minimum of $20,000 per year per job supported) and continuing annual losses thereafter." A very, very black picture was painted by that royal commission report, as the minister knows. The table on page 53 specifies annual losses ranging from $5.4 million to $3.4 million and also states that these loss projections were later revised and looked even worse.

Well, reading that, one is very upset. But then the Fort Nelson Chamber of Commerce, which I presume does not have the research services available to it of the royal commission, comes down to Victoria and presents to the government and others - the brief is addressed formally to the Minister of Economic Development - a brief commenting on the report of the royal commission. This brief was probably prepared in haste and, as I say, probably without the staff of the royal commission or anything like that behind it, but it looks to me to be rather competently done. The astonishing thing to me is that this brief paints an exactly opposite picture and I'm sure the minister's familiar with it. He will have seen it. It's a subject of concern to him. They come to the conclusion, after going through the various arithmetic, that in fact if the BCR's direct costs are put into the equation the operating cash profit over those five years becomes not a loss but a prof it of $24 million - $35 million if additional traffic due to the pipeline is to be carried on that line.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a difference in forecast of absolutely staggering proportions. On the one hand the royal commission says a $60 million to $70 million cost to the public; on the other hand the chamber of commerce says a $24 million to $35 million profit, not taking into account capital expenditure. There's a difference between the two of apparently some $60 million to $70 million. One of them is closer to being right than the other. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if it turns out it's the royal commission that is that far

[ Page 1703 ]

off base, I'm very concerned with any other work they may be doing. Yet, as I say, this brief presented by the Fort Nelson Chamber of Commerce appears to make a good deal of sense.

Now I know the minister will have studied this, and I would be very grateful if he would tell this committee whose figures he goes by -the royal commission's or Fort Nelson's - or where does he come down in between?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member brought up a number of items. I'm surprised to hear him say that he feels there is uncertainty in British Columbia, because I think there's a pretty confident climate. But that's very intangible. The member wasn't in the House when I outlined. In spite of maybe a few higher taxes in British Columbia, there was a 29 per cent increase in investment in manufacturing last year.

As I say, it's coming but it's very difficult living next to a province which is as rich as Alberta. Now Ontario or Manitoba - you know, those provinces down there don't have any trouble because they don't have to live next to Alberta. But I want to say something, my friend. Given about 10 to 15 years - and I wouldn't trade the economy of British Columbia for the economy of Alberta, in other words - I think we have a stronger base to work from. All we have to do is continue to get confidence and be positive.

Now with regard to an economic blueprint....

MR. GIBSON: How about Chose tax targets for the future sometime?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we have more social services in British Columbia than they do in Alberta, so there is a balance.

MR. LAUK: That's not correct, and you know it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is correct. I'm not going to get into the Ministry of Human Resources, but it's a case of what programmes you want to cut out. On the one hand you want us to help business to come here, and on the other one we've got to.... But certainly we're aware of the problem. I'd like to see taxes reduced to encourage investment, but we have to have money to run the province, so it's a case of balance.

We talk about economic strategy. Let's talk about an economic blueprint, some sort of guideline. You know, we're trying to entice manufacturing, build up our secondary industry, make sure our transportation systems work and introduce high-technology industry. I could talk all afternoon about the goals that we have for British Columbia, but that's what we're talking about. It's not a document that's printed and cast in stone or something like that; it's a guideline that we have. Certainly it changes as things change in British Columbia.

There are negotiations underway maybe between the private sector and Alcan, but we have some studies going on with regard to the nonferrous metal industry in Kitimat.

I think that until we can eliminate some of the problems that we know we have, Mr. Member, an economic council wouldn't really do us that much good. In other words, we know some of the constraints we've got, we know some of the problems we've got, but until we eliminate those, I don't really.... You know, we've got an Economic Council in Canada and I don't want to reflect on its ....

MR. GIBSON: We have a different economy from the national economy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I realize that. But don't forget that we do have a lot of input from industry and labour as to what's happening. We probably have more contact with the real world out there than you recognize. The Premier is meeting with people all the time. We have a pretty good rapport with industry.

I'm not going to comment on the royal commission report. They used figures which were provided to them. We have analysed them. We've analysed some of the reports they did on trucking versus rail. We don't necessarily agree with some of the contents of the report, but I'm not going to....

MR. GIBSON: I thank the minister for his answers. I'm particularly interested in the information that there are studies into nonferrous smelting facilities at Kitimat. That is one of the great potentials in British Columbia and I hope the minister will keep the public closely posted on those things before the final decisions are made.

Returning to the Fort Nelson situation, the minister has told us he doesn't want to comment on the royal commission's figures. Will he, then, comment on the Fort Nelson Chamber of Commerce figures? Those figures paint quite a rosy picture for that extension. If the minister said that he found those figures agreeable and well founded, then it seems to me that that enables this House to much better judge whatever recommendation or decision may be taken by the government in due course - by their own self-imposed deadline set by the Premier, I suppose sometime within the next

[ Page 1704 ]

couple of weeks - and enables this House and

s. this committee to assess much better whatever action is taken. Without going through all the figures at this point and asking the minister which ones he agrees with, does he generally feel the brief is on the right track?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As you know, we've also done some work on the report, and I'll say that we agree with our own figures.

MR. GIBSON: The minister agrees with his own brief. I'm not surprised at that. He agrees with most of his speeches too. We don't necessarily share that opinion. In order that we can be better informed.... We now have two briefs: the royal commission brief and the Fort Nelson brief. Now we hear of a third brief, with which the minister agrees.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't say a third brief.

MR. GIBSON: Not a third brief? You agree with your own brief?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say anything about a brief. I said "figures."

MR. GIBSON: You say you're hard of hearing; I am too.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and you know what caused it.

I didn't say anything about a brief. I said that we agreed with our own figures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member would like to know that it's Montreal 2 and Boston 1, and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano continues.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I took them to be brief figures rather than extended figures. I guess I was confused.

What I was going to ask the minister, though.... We have two sets of figures on the public record, the royal commission and the Fort Nelson. The minister has his own set of figures. Will he make them public?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, in due course.

MR. LAUK: As we're approaching twilight, perhaps the minister could just direct his mind back to comments he was making during his cross-examination by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . He rose, and he made a statement that I think cannot go unanswered, or at least should not be left on

Hansard without some further explanation by the minister. I'm sure he didn't mean what he said. He said that he was involved in that forgivable loan programme with the feds -what's it called again?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's ASEP.

MR. LAUK: Oh. Is that spelled ASOP?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, ASEP - Assistance to Small Enterprise Programme.

MR. LAUK: Well, the minister stated, and I think I'm getting him correctly, that the forgivable loan process is something that he didn't have much faith in. Yet he's the minister in charge of this programme. He's involved with the forgivable loan programme and he himself has no faith in it. Now that's a shocking statement to make. Why on earth did he get involved?

I should point out: to the minister, I don't have any faith in forgivable loan programmes either. There shouldn't be any. They encourage inefficiencies. They create silly, hothouse industries that should not be there. Neither side of this House should waste any of its time discussing such programmes. Why are we wasting federal and provincial money on forgivable loans? They encourage inefficiency and inappropriate businesses.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as the member knows, this programme is really for the small .entrepreneur. If he complies with the requests that we make when the loan is being given and employs a certain amount of people and creates a certain amount of activity, the loan can be forgivable.

MR. LAUK: My point is simply this: why cannot we talk to the federal government on a rational basis and put this money into a more efficient programme that would encourage efficiency of industries which fit into the B.C. economic strategy, not into federal programmes? It's like fitting a size 10 foot into a size 10 shoe. Why bother doing things like that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, out of the total money, we're only talking about a very, very small percentage on the ASEP programme, Mr. Member.

Vote 48 approved.

Vote 49: administration, $6,933, 841 - approved.

[ Page 1705 ]

Vote 50: grants, $6,340, 000 - approved.

Vote 51: federal-provincial shared-cost programmes, $14,000, 000 - approved.

Vote 52: building occupancy charges, $800,874 - approved.

Vote 53: computer and consulting charges, $936,891 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.