[ Page 531 ]

CONTENTS

Petition

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act.

Mr. Ritchie –– 531

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Health hazard for Provincial Museum employees. Mr. Hanson –– 531

Hospital financing. Mr. Cocke –– 532

Report on Charlene Harder death. Mr. Hall –– 534

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 19.

Mr. Hall –– 535

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 535

On vote 24.

Mrs. Dailly –– 536

Hon, Mr. Gardom 536

Mr. Leggatt –– 536

Mr. Hall –– 536

Mr. Stupich –– 537

On vote 32.

Mr. Leggatt –– 538

Mr. Skelly –– 538

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 539

On vote 35.

Mrs. Dailly –– 539

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 539

Mr. Levi –– 540

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 540

Mrs. Wallace –– 541

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 541

On vote 40.

Mr. Levi –– 542

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 542

On vote 41.

Mr. Levi –– 542

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 543

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

On vote 42.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 543

Mr. Levi –– 544

Mrs. Dailly –– 547

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 548

On vote 47.

Mrs. Wallace –– 548

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 549

Mr. Cocke –– 549

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 549

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of

Tourism and Small Business Development estimates.

On vote 56.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 549

Mr. Cocke –– 550

Mr. Leggatt –– 550

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 551

Mr. Stupich –– 555

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 555

Mr. Lea –– 556

Hon, Mr. Phillips 557

Mr. Leggatt –– 559

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 560

Tabling Reports

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 560

Transit Services Act report.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 560

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery today are a group of fine business people from that great community of Fort St. James in my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Froese and their children Dale, Shannon, Kenda, Currie and Darcy. I'd like the House to make them very welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Today in the gallery are some friends and neighbours from the Nelson-Creston riding, Greg and Lucille Ottewell, with their son Chuck; and Jack and Diane Robertson from Salmo. I hope the members would make them welcome.

MR. HYNDMAN: It's a popular fallacy that school teachers do not work in the summertime. School is out, but we have in the members' gallery today four very hardworking professional educators: Thom Hanson, president of the Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association; Allan Crawford, president of the Vancouver Elementary Teachers' Association; Norma Mercer, president of the Vancouver Elementary Administrators' Association; Bill Whyte, president of the Vancouver Secondary Administrators' Association. These four professional educators represent more than 3,000 teachers in the city of Vancouver. I ask the House to make them most welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today from greater Victoria is Pat Mileno. She has four children with her, and perhaps this is the first opportunity they have had to see their own British Columbia Legislature in session. They are Suzanne and Avon Watkin, and Michael and Robert Brown. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery today is another professional educator, Mr. Ray Bower. He is here with his wife. They are very good friends of mine, and I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr, Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Betty Backman, Goldic Maycock and Jill Baxendale, who are here from the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain and who have been very hard-working within the Mount Pleasant and Riley Park areas. Will you please welcome these three representatives from our constituency?

Presenting Petitions

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: The petition is "An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act," and I move that the petition be read and received, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member like to read the prayer that is with the petition?

MR. RITCHIE: The prayer reads as follows:

"Whereas a petition has been presented for amendment of the Trinity Western College Act, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition.

"Therefore Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia…."

And the rest is as follows:

"The petition of Trinity Western College, a society duly incorporated under the laws of the province of British Columbia, humbly showeth:

"That your petitioner seeks the enactment of an Act intituled an Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act. to be introduced and dealt with as a private bill.

"That the objects in soliciting the Act are: (a) to specifically provide for the college to have degree-granting powers and (b) to change the name of the Trinity Western College to the Trinity Western University, in keeping with the provisions for the offering of a full university education provided for by the Legislative Assembly in the Trinity Western College Amendment Act which was given royal assent on October 21, 1977."

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

HEALTH HAZARD FOR
PROVINCIAL MUSEUM EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Provincial Secretary. For some time now, as he is aware, the employees at the Provincial Museum have been indicating their concern that they have been working with toxic materials and epoxy resins that they believe are hazardous to their health. That concern culminated in a half-day work stoppage sometime over the Easter weekend, when the ventilation system was shut down. The WCB then conducted an inquiry and issued a compliance order that the Provincial Museum should re-install proper ventilation equipment in the areas where these materials are held.

My question is: is the minister aware that the ministry has not complied with the WCB order, and is the minister aware that the United States Department of Health. Education and Welfare has written a bulletin, dated October 12, 1978, indicating that the substances that are being used in the Provincial Museum here are carcinogenic and can cause human chromosome damage?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I am aware of concerns which have been expressed. I am also aware of the fact that there was a partial stoppage over a portion of a day earlier this year, due to concern which was expressed by employees. We do not want to have any employee of the provincial government working under circumstances which could be dangerous to that employee's health. I will take the balance of the question as notice and report back to the House.

[ Page 532 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, would the minister initiate immediate action to have the employees removed from occupational exposure?

MR. SPEAKER: This inquires into future action.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It does, Mr. Speaker. I would simply have to restate that the member has expressed his concern and the stated concern of individuals employed in the museum, and I shall waste no time in making a full inquiry into his statements in the House today.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Since there are charges flying back and forth in the province with respect to hospital financing, charges as serious as lives being lost, I wonder if the minister is now in the process of dealing with the shortfall of budgets in the hospitals of our province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: In that case, maybe the minister can get rather specific. I notice that the Royal Columbian Hospital announced today that a further 68 people were being laid off. First there were 50 from attrition and now a further loss of 68 people. This is a hospital that announced some time ago that it could not maintain its programs with the present staff. Now, I'm sure, the hospital will have to curtail programs. Will he specifically be looking into that serious situation?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the situation's being discussed with all hospitals at the present time and with the British Columbia Health Association. The method by which funds will be disbursed will be a subject of discussion over the next several weeks. Part of it is complicated by the fact that we do not have at this time the audited statements from the hospitals of British Columbia. We do not know the situation in which they find themselves, nor do they at this time, and they won't until those audited statements are made available.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, can the minister explain his gross incompetence? This has been known for months and months in this province. Why is he suddenly saying now that he has no basis from which to work?

MR. SPEAKER: I would refer the member for New Westminster to section 171 of Beauchesne, which suggests that it is improper to make imputation via questions.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Health. The board of Victoria General Hospital, which includes government appointees, has unanimously refused to allow the government's budgetary restrictions to endanger patient care. The response of the minister was to call them irresponsible.

Now Dr. Richard Brownlee, who's the chief of cardiac surgery at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, said as recently as yesterday that a long and unnecessary waiting list at that hospital for open-heart surgery has resulted in two deaths.

My first question to the minister is: does he consider Dr. Brownlee's comments to be irresponsible?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Would you repeat that question?

MR. SPEAKER: A further question? The question is rhetorical, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask it again, because it appears the minister didn't hear it.

Very quickly, the board of Victoria General Hospital has refused to go along with the minister's budgetary restrictions. His reply was to call them irresponsible. Now the chief of cardiac surgery at Royal Jubilee Hospital, Dr. Richard Brownlee, as recently as yesterday has said that a long and unnecessary waiting list for open heart surgery has resulted in two deaths. My first question to the minister is: does he consider Dr. Brownlee's statement to be irresponsible?

MR. SPEAKER: The question hasn't changed at all; it is still rhetorical. It's not a question of whether the minister wishes to reply; it's whether the question is admissible.

MR. BARBER: I don't want to take up the time of the House debating whether it is rhetorical. I would like an answer, and the minister did appear to agree. You have on previous occasions....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not for debate whether the question is rhetorical; it's for decision.

MR. BARBER: If the minister chooses to answer, Mr. Speaker, will you allow it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is within the prerogative of the Chair, as I understand it, to decide whether the question is rhetorical, admissible or inadmissible — without debate — as I would remind the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: I have a constituent who is 57 years of age. The first of four heart attacks he has suffered occurred in 1972. He entered hospital in Victoria on June 25. Angiograms were taken; he was described as having marked deterioration and is in a very unstable condition. He's not been allowed to leave the hospital because of his particular heart disease. Four times he has had surgery scheduled in the open-heart ward at Royal Jubilee; four times the surgery has been cancelled. I am informed that it is because of long and unnecessary waiting lists. I am informed that it is because of inadequate facilities. I want to know what the minister is prepared to do to guarantee that unnecessary waiting lists and budgetary restrictions will not deny this particular citizen his right to medical care now, when he needs it, in this particular ward of a hospital in British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to answer that question in this way. First of all, the provision of medical care to that citizen is the responsibility of his physician. His physician must make those decisions as to whether the medical conditions are correct for that

[ Page 533 ]

patient. Neither I nor you should interfere with that relationship between a physician and his patient.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have never called anybody irresponsible. What I said on one occasion was that a decision by anyone who is spending public funds to spend funds which they don't have is irresponsible. They should first of all make sure of where those funds are coming from, and that's a decision that they must make. I accept that, if that's the decision they make, but it's very important in terms of spending public money that that decision is made.

Quickly, Mr. Speaker, I want to explain the situation as it relates to open-heart surgery in this province. From the beginning of the development of that procedure it's been perceived that it must be the medical profession which decides the levels and the numbers of open-heart surgery cases which are to proceed in any facility which does that procedure. As you'll understand, only a few very specialized facilities in British Columbia do that very technical, specialized and somewhat controversial procedure within the medical profession. So I have left the recommendation on the numbers of heart surgery cases to be done within those facilities to a very expert committee of the British Columbia Medical Association. It has an ongoing study of open-heart surgery in this province, which recommends to me how many cases each hospital should be handling. I want the hon. member and the House to know this is not a simple question of whether or not the facilities are made available in a hospital at a given time. There is also some interhospital rivalry among the medical profession about who should use the operating facilities within that hospital.

The reason for that, I suppose, is obvious in some ways, but it makes more important our decision to accept only the recommendation of those expert committees of doctors who can alleviate that inter hospital rivalry.

I've said from the beginning that those committees will recommend to me, and it will be on that basis that further heart surgery procedure will be allowed. At the present time there are six cases a week allowed at Royal Jubilee Hospital. Dr. Brownlee has been in my office as recently as two weeks ago, and has fully agreed with the procedure in place.

We have asked that committee to report as quickly as possible on their recommendation for further need for that procedure to be done at Royal Jubilee Hospital. At the present time I have no report from that committee. I have asked them to expedite that report; I want it as quickly as possible. I'm told a preliminary report was given to my staff either today or yesterday. I am also told, and I have not seen it, that that report recommends that heart surgery at Royal Jubilee be increased from six cases to nine. If that's what that report says, I am prepared to recommend that and to implement it immediately.

MR. BARBER: The problem has been in the minister's hands for some years now, and immediately....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No!

MR. BARBER: Yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. BARBER: The open-heart surgery ward opened there in July of '73.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is not to enter debate: it is simply to ask a question. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: The report, with which I'm also familiar, sponsored by the BCMA and published by the open-heart surgery review advisory subcommittee, as I understand it, in its first draft has been in the ministry since January.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It has not.

MR. BARBER: Well. If that's not....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I answer that question right now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Just a minute.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'd like to answer your question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: You haven't even heard the question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sure, you just asked me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We do not yet have a question. So far we have only had debate. The question, please.

MR. BARBER: Will you table the report just as soon as you receive it, be it in the first form — that I understand was made available some time ago — or in the current form, which the minister indicates has come in to the House today? There are people out there who would not be impressed by the cold-hearted and bureaucratic answer you gave this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: They might be more impressed to see practical action. the first stage of which....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has clearly indicated that he's willing to abuse the rules of question period. I would suggest that either he ask a question or allow some other member to ask a question.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not in order, and the member knows that it is not in order. It's inquiring into the future activity of a minister. We have had to warn members on several occasions that those questions are not in order.

[ Page 534 ]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: He says he wishes to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question whether he wishes to answer; it is whether the question is admissible.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: The minister wishes to make a statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, either a statement or an answer to one of the questions he did have.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I know very well that the member opposite does not want to hear the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. LEVI: If there's no question, there can't be an answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want the answer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, could I have your guidance? I understood from the member's speech — and I understand too that the members on that side don't like the truth nor do they want to hear it — that there was a question about whether I had received a report. I would like to answer that question, if I may. I don't know whether it's in order.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't received the report. That's a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey.

REPORT ON CHARLENE HARDER DEATH

MR. HALL: On a point of order, are the last few seconds added on to question period or not? We have been consistently thwarted by that minister. He's got reports in his possession and refuses to release them to either the public or this side of the House. We'll get them after his estimates, Mr. Speaker, and if I'm out of order, please say so.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General called for an inquiry into the unfortunate death of an infant in my constituency, Charlene Harder of Surrey, and the circumstances surrounding that death and asked the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, Richard Bird, to look into that matter for him. I would like to know if the Attorney-General has received that report and if he has received it, when he did receive it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: An interim report was received, Mr. Member, and seen by myself about a couple of weeks ago. Additional inquiries are being made and I have not seen the final report. I'm not too sure if I do have the final report yet.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, some time was again taken in question period on points of order. I'm wondering if, in view of the time that was taken for question period, we could have an extension, as was granted the other day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on several occasions when it has been necessary for the Chair to intervene, I have requested that the time which I have taken from question period not be added to the 15-minute time. However, I have no way of taking time which members themselves take during points of order. If members wish to utilize the time in question period for points of order, that is their prerogative. The Chair is powerless to act in that regard, unless hon. members wish to make it otherwise.

MR. KING: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to your rulings on the admissibility of questions, I would appreciate some specific instructions with respect to what questions you find admissible. I wonder on what grounds a question asking the minister to file a document is out of order.

That seems to me, sir, to unnecessarily constrict the parameters of question period. I do not consider it to be seeking a future opinion from a minister to ask for an undertaking that when a document comes into his hands, he will file it. That's asking for a current decision by the minister. I would like the Chair's guidance in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: I am bound by the parameters which were clearly established, first of all, by an order of this House dated February 28, 1977, and further by the supplementary guidelines established by Beauchesne. In each instance, certainly if I'm required to do so, I would love to cite the section that is involved. If a question is clearly rhetorical, then that question is inadmissible; not only is it inadmissible, but many times there is no answer to the question. As such, the Chair directs the attention of the House to the fact that it is a rhetorical question and hopefully it suffices.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think there's where we might be running into a bit of trouble. Yes, it's within your parameters to rule a question out of order if it is rhetorical. But I think we're running into a bit of a problem over the meaning of "rhetorical." It wouldn't be an uncommon thing for a group of people to find different meanings in the same word.

MR. SPEAKER: In just such an instance, hon. member, I would remind you of the report of the committee on standing orders and private bills of February 27, 1973, which states, either fortunately or unfortunately, in section

[ Page 535 ]

4: "The decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final on allowing or disallowing any question."

MR. LEA: I quite agree with that. You wouldn't allow the question because it was specifically out of order, because in your opinion it was rhetorical. My question is: what, in your opinion, does "rhetorical" mean? I read a different meaning in the word "rhetorical," I think, than you do. So if we're going to deal with it, then I think we all have to understand the meaning of the words we're using in common.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. Hon. members, may I suggest that rather than enter a lengthy debate at this time on this, perhaps the hon. member for Prince Rupert would like to sit down with the Speaker in his chambers and we could discuss the meaning of "rhetorical."

MR. LEA: It isn't good enough, Mr. Speaker, for you and I to come to some common understanding of what "rhetorical" means. All 57 members have to understand what "rhetorical" means. I would suggest that "rhetorical" should be used in this House as it describes it in the dictionary.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Funk and Wagnall?

MR. LEA: No, I would say Mirriam-Webster, seventh edition.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think that perhaps we can close the matter by saying that if we had 57 opinions of the meaning of "rhetorical," we could not come to a conclusion here this afternoon.

MR. LEA: There's only one meaning. It's the one described in the dictionary, and I'm wishing that we use that one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think this is exactly why the committee in its wisdom has said that the decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pursue the issue that I raised earlier on a point of order, and ask leave of the House at this stage to have question period extended to allow the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) to complete his questioning of the Attorney-General. The other day when a point of order interrupted question period, leave of the House was granted and I ask that the same courtesy of the House be extended at this time.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wish to advise hon. members that today Mr. Justice Peter Seaton of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was named commissioner, under the Public Inquiries Act, to inquire and report concerning the allegations of interference with judicial independence raised in the committee of this House yesterday.

The matter is before a commissioner, a justice of the court of appeal of our province, and it is inappropriate for me to make additional comments.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 19: minister's office, $145,623 — continued.

MR. HALL: I was about to ask the Attorney-General a couple of questions, and he was good enough to reply to the first one a little earlier. I'd like, though, to ask him if he would acquaint the House with really what is an interim report on this unfortunate happening in my constituency, and if he feels the best interests of the community are being served by any further delay in some response from the ministry that was called, not only by members of the community, but by his colleague. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who, when asking the Attorney-General for au inquiry said her initial examination of the case seemed to indicate that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police allegations were groundless, and that the death of a child in such tragic circumstances warrants a thorough investigation and full public disclosure of the findings.

I think that's a good statement, Mr. Chairman. It's now six or seven weeks since the Attorney-General called for the inquiry. I know that these things sometimes take longer than we want them to. Indeed, sometimes government takes a little longer than we really should expect it to take. But an interim report has been received. Perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us something about that report before much more time has elapsed, or perhaps he could tell us now what its initial findings are.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With every respect, hon. member, it would not be in the public interest to do that. When the final report is produced, additional steps will be taken. But it is not in the public interest to do that now.

MR. HALL: I'm prepared to accept that it may not be in the public interest, although I’m sure he'd have to explain that to his colleague who feels a full public disclosure of the findings is required.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not finished.

MR. HALL: Well, how long is it going to be?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not long.

MR. HALL: Not long! It's been six or seven weeks now and we've had occasion. Mr. Chairman, in this House to wonder when we're going to see the results of inquiries started by that government. One report is gathering dust on one minister's table, and he simply refuses to disclose it.

[ Page 536 ]

We're a little fed up with not getting this kind of information. I know I can't insist on its being reported, but I'm going to be after you constantly until you publish some results of this thing. I don't want to abuse the House, nor do I want to abuse the Attorney-General, who is waiting patiently for his money. Would you kindly earn it, Mr. Attorney-General? Kindly earn it, and give us the results of your findings.

Vote 19 approved.

Vote 20: administration and support, $4,118,780 — approved.

Vote 21: court services, $30,007,013 — approved.

Vote 22: criminal justice division, $8,082,746 — approved.

Vote 23: police services, $38,641,433 — approved.

On vote 24: corrections, $56,487,836.

MRS. DAILLY: During the earlier debate on the Attorney-General's estimates the member for Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) asked a question about the closing of Oakalla. His question — which I don't believe was answered by the Attorney-General — was that to our knowledge extensive renovations and considerable sums of money are being poured into Oakalla at the present time the women's unit and the men's....

HON. MR. GARDOM: They're needed.

MRS. DAILLY: I grant you, they're needed. But I wondered why is it being done — we didn't get a specific answer — if the intent of the government is to close it down, as the Attorney-General said earlier.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's very obvious, hon. member, and you know and everybody in this Legislature knows that the renovations are needed. That's why they're being done. I don't think anybody is going to suggest you are going to stop running water and cut off electric light — which is not the case; I am embellishing the point now — because at some time you intend to phase out something. Renovations are required and the phase-out, I can assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), and yourself, too, is not going to happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Oakalla is phasing out, and one major step already taken is the remand facilities in Vancouver. I'm not prepared to give anybody a commitment today that Oakalla is going to be closed next year, the year after, or the year after that. It's just not possible to do that.

I gave a commitment to the people of British Columbia, and to this Assembly, that we were going to take positive steps to phase out Oakalla. I may say, with every respect to every former administration since the time Oakalla was built, we have taken a more positive step than anyone. We've done something. It's not yet built, but we're totally committed to this remand centre, which is a first step. Until it's up, and until other facilities are developed elsewhere — if it's possible to develop other facilities elsewhere — Oakalla, in a reduced form, has to continue. Everybody knows that.

MRS. DAILLY: I realize that since the inmates are in there certain renovations are probably needed. But the type of renovations and the amount of money that's being spent right now are creating a certain amount of cynicism within the corrections area as to whether it will ever be phased out.

Vote 24 approved.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, on vote 24, it deals with Oakalla....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We've actually passed the vote. I'll have to ask leave to go back to the vote. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LEGGATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've asked the Attorney-General to give serious consideration to including under provincial jurisdiction women sentenced to federal prison. At the present time, as the Attorney-General knows, women sentenced to a term of more than two years are dealt with in a federal penitentiary. Some of them are sent to Kingston, Ontario.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Some.

MR. LEGGATT: The point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the most appropriate place for those women to be housed is in a provincial jail under provincial jurisdiction — closer to home. There are very few really long-term offenders among women prisoners. As the Attorney-General may know, a study was done by a standing committee of the House of Commons on the subject of the incarceration of women. The Elizabeth Fry Society has taken a position, as I recall it, that women are more appropriately housed in provincial jurisdiction and in provincial prisons. So I'm merely rising to my feet, Mr. Chairman, to ask the Attorney-General to give some serious consideration at the next federal-provincial conference to the idea of including women under provincial jurisdiction for the purpose of corrections. Of course, there would have to be suitable fiscal arrangements made with the federal authority.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Underline that last statement.

MR. LEGGATT: All right, I will. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the province assume any more financial responsibility, but I think an appropriate arrangement could be made — and it's certainly better for those inmates that that be the case.

And while I'm on my feet I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for his very prompt action, which he announced today in his response to the questions that had been asked over the last several days. I think he's entitled to some congratulations for moving quickly on that sensitive matter.

MR. HALL: In the votes for the Attorney-General numbered 19 to 41 — which we can discuss in great detail

[ Page 537 ]

as we go through them — there is a figure at the very end which doesn't have a number beside it. entitled "less recruitment savings."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That matter should have been discussed, I would assume, under vote 19.

MR. HALL: The assumption may be more powerful coming from you, Mr. Chairman, than it was from me when I tried to discuss this before under a different minister.

My point is that if we are indeed going to discuss recruitment savings, which deals with the wages of personnel, it seems to me that perhaps the best vote to do it under is the one that looks forward to paying the largest number of personnel, which would, in this case. be "Corrections," which is hiring 2,065 people. I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman — and I'm prepared to have the Attorney-General take it as notice, if he requires that — what part of that 2,065 personnel isn't going to be working if he is going to save some $3.75 million in wages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in terms of whether it's appropriate under this particular vote, we actually have by my wizardry of mathematics an increase in staff of one under vote 24, so recruitment savings could hardly be appropriate under this vote. I appreciate the dilemma that the member is in and I'm trying to point out....

MR. HALL: May I suggest with all the humility I have that you're supposed to be working perhaps as much for us as you are for the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon. member. I'm also supposed to be the Chairman of the committee, and it's my determination to try and get the discussion under the correct vote. It seems to me that under this particular vote there is no recruitment saving; not only is the budget substantially increased, but there is actually an increase in staff.

MR. HALL: You're making my speech for me, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there is any recruitment saving at all. That's why I'm asking about the $8 million.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not under this vote.

MR. HALL: Oh, the Minister of Labour tells us it's not in this vote.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you can read the books as well as anyone else, Ernie.

MR. HALL: I thought I could; but then you cooked the books a little bit, Mr. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Could you two fellows debate your estimates outside of the House and let me get on with mine?

MR. HALL: If you just keep quiet, we'll get on a lot better.

He's not made many contributions since he's been here, so he's not likely to make any this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to find out what estimate the government used to try and get $8 million out of the budget in this ministry alone. If you add up the total recruitment savings for the government. It comes to some millions of dollars. And I would like to be advised, Mr. Chairman, where we can discuss it, and where we can get some answers as to what opportunity is going to be seized by Treasury Board, by the Government Employee Relations Bureau, by the Public Service Commission and so on and so forth. Surely to goodness the minister knows, with all the people he's controlling, where the savings are going to be made.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You get it in his estimates.

MR. HALL: I didn’t get any answer from him either, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You did too: it's in the Blues.

MR. HALL: I was told to look in the budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The appropriate place to discuss this is under vote 19. There is, If I'm not mistaken, a similar recruitment savings without a particular vote number for every one of the ministers — for example, for Consumer and Corporate Affairs it's in vote 42, and for Deregulation it's in vote 52.

MR. HALL: I can follow that, but my point then, Mr. Chairman, is that I'm curious to know whether the recruitment savings in vote 20, which will be applied to vote 24 from the $8 million, is going to the secure custodial facilities or the community-based programs the Attorney-General boasts so much about. It's one thing putting a figure in a budget, Mr. Chairman, and boasting that you're decentralizing things, and then you use the magical minus figure at the end of a vote and say: "We're not going to give you the money to start the program off." That's what we're trying to find out. This isn't a budget; this doesn't tell us how you deploy personnel. and you know it, Mr. Attorney-General.

All I say is perhaps you'll take the question as notice. I won't flog the issue here; I again serve you notice, though, Mr. Attorney-General that I'm going to be going after every minister, even when the session finishes, to find out what recruitment savings have been achieved, and how they stack up with that figure, Frankly, I'm a little bit from Missouri; even though I'm a Canadian citizen, I'm from Missouri.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just for the guidance of the committee, for the future ministerial estimates that we go through, this particular recruitment saving item had better be discussed under the minister's office vote, which is the global vote.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to discuss that very question with you. The Minister of Finance did tell us that what he really meant by recruitment savings was that they aren't going to hire the number of people that they have in these votes as quickly as the vote would indicate, and they're going to save money by

[ Page 538 ]

delaying the hiring of some of the people included in this vote. So it would seem to me that the most reasonable....

HON. MR. WOLFE: You know that's not what I said.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the Minister of Finance, who is interrupting me, read the Blues.

There is a lag in hiring the people who are provided for in these votes. That was the explanation given to us for recruitment saving. Surely the place to discuss it would be in the area of the particular service that would seem to be going to suffer most, where most people are hired. But if you like, we can save it for the minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter has already been discussed in general terms under the Minister of Finance.

Vote 24 approved.

Vote 25: Legal Services Commission, $10,014,770 — approved.

Vote 26: Justice Development Commission, $858,317 — approved.

Vote 27: legal services to government, $3,917,204 — approved.

Vote 28: superior and county court, $1,127,114 — approved.

Vote 29: provincial court, $5,698,478 — approved.

Vote 30: coroners, $1,072,456 — approved.

Vote 31: British Columbia Parole Board, $67,225 — approved.

On vote 32: Law Reform Commission, $286,190.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Attorney-General that the Law Reform Commission has various matters referred to it. Now two of the members of this House — I think the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and also the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) — argued about the question of the mysticism of the law and the democratization of the law, et cetera. It seems to me a useful consideration that the Law Reform Commission should be looking at a specific area, and to me one of the important areas is the way we do royal commissions in the province of British Columbia. I can speak as a lawyer on this; here I think we have emphasized too much the whole legal process before royal commissions. I believe the idea of appointing a judge to conduct a royal commission with a battery of very high-powered counsel cross-examining every witness who comes before that royal commission is a mistake.

I think that what we've had too often is royal commissions that intimidate the ordinary citizen in the community who may want to come forward and testify. Now I'm not putting this forward as a general proposition, but I'm suggesting that when you get to the study of a specific subject by royal commission we should have another look at the way those royal commissions are conducted. We should make those rules much more flexible, reducing to some extent the idea that there's going to be a battery of counsel before those royal commissions cross-examining every lay person who comes before it. I could recommend some studies on this subject done by ex–royal commissioners, who have recommended certain changes, but I just put this forward as a consideration for the Attorney-General to give some consideration to referring to the Law Reform Commission the subject of procedure with royal commissions, and the idea of using more lay personnel and less formalistic structure when you're doing those kinds of studies. I'm thinking particularly of the railway study that was recently done by Mr. Justice Mackenzie, but there are a number of others in this province.

We have a tradition of using judges and lawyers on royal commissions, and I think it's probably one area where I have some sympathy for both the member for Okanagan North and for Burnaby-Edmonds, who suggested that we could demystify that process a little bit.

MR. SKELLY: I know this is a matter of some concern to the Attorney-General, and I appreciate the opportunity he's given me to discuss it under this vote. I believe he has presented in years past a number of private member's bills intituled The Sunshine Act, The Sunshine Act Revisited and The Sunshine Act Rehashed. But he is concerned about freedom of information. I believe his staff presented a position paper or a White Paper on freedom of information to a Canadian Bar Association seminar possibly some time last year. At that time the CBA offered certain criticisms and proposed certain changes to it. We expected that a final paper would be available last fall and then again, I believe, in June of this year. It now appears to have been put on the back burner so we may not see it at all, or we may see it in the fall. I'm wondering what's happening to the minister's pet project, the freedom of information Act, and I urge the minister to make this a priority item.

One of the frustrations that citizens do have with the British Columbia government — and I'm not talking about this government alone as they had the same problems with our government — is the lack of availability of information. This is information that was paid for by the taxpayers and should be available to the taxpayers, which will allow more informed comment on what the government is proposing or considering.

I have some examples. We keep asking from across the floor for the study that was done on capital formation in the province of British Columbia. We're constantly asking for environmental, studies such as the one done in the Cowichan estuary. These studies don't seem to be forthcoming. The studies about timber supply and the effects of timber management are not forthcoming from across the floor of this House. Yet they don't really cause any political problems to the government. They're not that politically sensitive. We do not have the legislation that allows us to go to the government and demand those materials as is our right as taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps I could just interrupt you at this point to remind you that we're on vote 32. It deals with the Law Reform Commission. I have allowed you a certain amount of latitude, but this appears to be more on vote 19, which has already passed.

[ Page 539 ]

MR. SKELLY: Unfortunately the Law Reform Commission has dealt with this subject, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has, and you also dealt with some manners of legislation and matters requiring legislation which aren't appropriate to this.

MR. SKELLY: This has to do with the White Paper that the minister is preparing, not with the legislation.

In 1972, when I first became an MLA, I went to the Forest Service to ask for a copy of a tree farm licence agreement between Her Majesty and a client of the Crown. I was told that since it was an agreement between Her Majesty and a client of the Crown, I was not to be able to see it, even though I was a member of the Legislature and the TFL agreements covered a large part of my riding.

Also, we were unable to get the returns filed under contractor clauses, and we weren't able to see pollution control files. Most of these were open on an administrative decision by the Minister of Forests at that time. In most of the things that we established, such as the Land Commission, access was made available to those files at the time we established those agencies. But the government seems to have gone back to placing more restrictions on access to information.

The Pesticide Control Act is a perfect example. We can’t even find out if permits have been applied for, and if they have been granted. We also have section 97 of the Land Commission Act which effectively denies citizens the right to that information.

I would like to know. I think this is a priority, should be a priority, and should be brought forward by the minister. I would like to hear from him that it's going to be a priority and that we'll see that White Paper or working paper in the very near future.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member, I'm not going to get into a political discourse. But I think this government indeed has good reason to be very proud of its record of accountability: quarterly reporting, the ombudsman and the auditor-general. These are all firsts for the province and matters which I'm sure the aged member for Vancouver East would support.

MR. MACDONALD: There's no ombudsman, They're not appointing him until October.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He was appointed, sir, on the first of July. You're always wrong, Alex. You'd better read a little more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's still not appropriate under vote 32, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In dealing with the sunshine bill which your former colleague made such great hay out of and thereafter pulled the blind down upon, the one that a few of us borrowed a little — something borrowed, something old, something new — I would like to say to the hon. member that freedom of information is a matter that is under continuing review. A complete policy has not yet been formulated. Government policy has not vet been formulated upon it.

It's not as easy a matter in specifics as one would really think. Of course, there are very very different routes taken in different parts of the world, vis-à-vis the route in the United States and the route that was proposed by Mr. Baldwin when he was an opposition member in the federal House in Ottawa.

I think we were going to took with some degree of interest as to what route the federal government may take, because it's really a matter that is delicate. There’s both freedom of information, and there’s the right to privacy. There are opportunities for conflict between the two, particularly now, since we're living in the age of almost instant communication and computer traffic.

MR. SKELLY: I do realize some of the difficulties surrounding the implementation of freedom of information, but some provinces have brought in some fairly successful legislation. I understand that New Brunswick’s, in cases where information is denied by the government, provides for judicial review, which is unique in Canada. I understand that Nova Scotia has a similar statute, but it's not a very satisfactory one, and that government will be bringing in changes to it. I hope that B.C. can take a leadership role in freedom of information. rather than waiting for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to bring in their statutes. I know we did the same thing with the ombudsman. I would think that this is one thing in which we should take a leadership role, and it should be a priority item. I hope the Attorney-General will give it that priority.

Vote 32 approved.

Vote 33: Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, $1,255,000 — approved.

Vote 34: public trustee, $1,569,882 — approved.

On vote 35: fire marshal, $1,239,425.

MRS. DAILLY: On this vote, I think one of the first things that strikes you, of course, is that it is one of our most important votes. The need for fire prevention in this province is understood by all. It is particularly noteworthy, as seen in this morning's paper, that the Attorney-General's ministry is apparently moving on the whole problem of the increase in arson. We're glad to see you're doing a program there. But at the same time as the Attorney-General is moving in this area, we find under this vote that he is that we see cutting down in his ministry the amount of money apportioned to the whole area of fire prevention. I find this a very confusing situation. For instance, last year the amount under the fire marshal's vote was $1,439,000. This year it has dropped down $2 million. We find that the staff has dropped from 53 to 49. We are in a situation in British Columbia today where we are faced with increased arson, and at the same time the ministry is cutting down on their services.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all. If the honourable Chair would bear with me, I'd like to refer a moment to the Arson Alert program. I must confess I didn't see the report in the paper that you referred to. This has been underway for a few months now. Arson Awareness Week was heralded in Victoria on May 1. This is a frontal attack on

[ Page 540 ]

arson, and it's very, very necessary. Even in the early stages the program is progressing favourably. It's far too soon to indicate whether it's going to be a total success, but somewhat similar programs have proven to be successful in other jurisdictions.

Some of the figures on arson are somewhat staggering as to the number of fires created by arson. Really, the thrust of the Arson Alert program is to request that members of the community notify the authorities if they have any reason to suspect arson. They can do that with anonymity; we have a Zenith call number. If a suspected arson fire is identified as such, it is sort of a call to the community to respond. We, of course, now have the fire commissioner, Gordon Anderson, who is an excellent appointment. We're looking forward to great success there.

Dealing with the vote itself, it is my understanding that it is down by virtue of the fact that earlier there was a total allocation for the regional offices. But the regional offices are now being phased in. The first one is all ready in Nanaimo, and the contemplated figure is for over a three-year period. It is the phase-in figure; that is why the vote is down. There's a re-allocation of budgeted moneys to enhance training and implement arson alert. In actual fact, it's just a phasing down, as opposed to writing in the estimates the total amount necessary for all of the regional offices.

The Nanaimo regional office, I'm pleased to say, has already opened, and we're looking forward to a report from it in due course.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sure the public is waiting for assurance in that area. We'll follow with great interest the increase in regional services in this area. I still find it somewhat confusing how you can increase the regional offices, yet the figures here don't seem to show that. Certainly we'll accept the word of the Attorney-General that this service is not showing a decline.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Staff is up.

MRS. DAILLY: Staff is up, is it? Staff is down here.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I'm sorry; it's down.

MRS. DAILLY: That's what I still find somewhat confusing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They've budgeted for the implementation of three, and did one.

MRS. DAILLY: Finally, I can't leave this vote without once again expressing to the Attorney-General my concern that lottery moneys were used to provide smoke detector units for profit-making homes. When we look at this vote and realize that if there's proper fire servicing, proper fire inspection, surely we shouldn't have to be subsidizing private profit-making homes out of lottery funds. But I'll leave that till when we get to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEVI: The minister, Mr. Chairman, gave a nice, pleasant la-de-da explanation which really amounted to nothing. He's been making a lot of press play out of the fact that we have a very serious problem in arson in the province, and it's true, we do. I understand last year we had at least a $75 million loss.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was $81 million. No, not through arson, through fire.

MR. LEVI: Sixty percent of fires are listed as arson, I understood. All right, with a loss of $75 million, arson would be probably in the order of $30 million to $40 million.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If I could interrupt the hon. member and give you the figures....

MR. LEVI: No you can't; I've got the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But I'll help your speech and give you the right figures.

MR. LEVI: No, no. That kind of help I don't need.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam continues, please.

MR. LEVI: The Attorney-General has gone into the Arson Alert program, which is based to a large extent on what's going on in Seattle. Oh, I see. The one we have here is in the beginning stage, but the key thing in the Seattle one is an adequate amount of people to do the inspection and to do the investigation.

As I understand it, there are only 12 investigators. I'd like the minister to comment on this. There are actually 12 investigators in the fire marshal's department. But are there other people, perhaps some policemen, who are designated as investigators? The Arson Alert program is basically attempting to get the public to phone in and give information about people they believe are setting fires and incidents where there are unreported fires. But what are the plans with respect to beefing up the investigation services? That's the serious problem, in terms of the lack of personnel to do this. Also, I understand there are some very serious problems around the overtime problem. People can only work until five, and after that there's no overtime. There have been some serious problems in that department, particularly in relation to investigation. But if it's to be as successful as what's going on in Seattle, there has to be an adequate amount of investigatory staff. I'm not satisfied with the minister's explanation. As the vote reads, it's down $200,000, and it's down four in staff. My colleague said $2 million. Oh, no, you've got a different book than I've got. It's $200,000.

We'd like to get the Attorney-General to tell us whether the staff is down. How many investigators do they have in the fire marshal's department to back up the Arson Alert program? Because it seems to me that regardless of what he said, the operation is being scaled down. Now if Arson Alert is to be successful, it has to be beefed up. Will he comment on that? He's still looking for his notes, I gather.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm trying to look for the specific figure, but I think the hon. member and some of the other hon. members might like to have an overview, notwithstanding the fact that that may take a little bit of time.

First of all, the figures of deaths over a five-year period, 1974 to 1978: 1974, 102; 1975, 92; 1976, 89; 1977 and 1978, 98 deaths. It should be noted that the upward trend in

[ Page 541 ]

fire deaths over the past 20 years levelled off commencing in about 1974. We attribute this to really significant changes in the former Fire Marshal Act, and the greater emphasis upon fire prevention and protection measures which have happened since then.

I want to deal with some of the programs which are part of the overall program, independent but associated with and complementing Arson Alert. The fire academy was established formally by the handing over of a cheque for a half a million dollars to Mr. Robert Stewart, who's chairman of the board of the Justice Institute of B.C. That money was to assist in the initial establishment of training facilities for fire services in B.C. There's no question that these facilities will be a major step towards establishing a uniform standard of training.

There was the proclamation of the Fire Services Act and the appointment of the fire commissioner, Mr. Gordon Anderson, whose name I mentioned a couple of moments ago, and their two components under the supervision of the fire commissioner, the division of operational fire services on the one hand, and fire inspection and prevention on the other. There's the fire services advisory board. The appointments have not yet been made to that, but they will be made very shortly. Its responsibility will be to advise in the establishment of standards for the province in all matters connected with operational fire services in B.C.

As for regional offices, the plans were underway to establish the first one in Nanaimo and that has occasioned. It's going to be staffed by a regional manager, two inspectors and a clerk.

There is also the Arson Alert program, which we've referred to, and the smoke alarm program in the rest homes which your colleague for Burnaby referred to. The railway safety training program, a two-and-a-half-hour audio-visual training program in the safe handling of railway incidents, has been completed.

Public information — a lot has been done there in the last year, because 43 of the total 98 fire fatalities in 1978 resulted from careless smoking habits — just about half from smoking. There's no question that alcohol has been largely a contributing factor in most of these deaths as well.

There has been publication and distribution of about 60,000 guideline pamphlets on smoke detectors for the home, and this pamphlet was a tremendous success. Guidelines have further been produced over, I believe, the last 12 months for the safe installation of propane in recreational vehicles.

Our fire statistics that we can produce in B.C. are the best type of statistics that can be produced in Canada. Other provinces have not yet developed the sophisticated method of producing statistics that we have insofar as fires are concerned,

Dealing with arson, it's about 22 percent of the fires that occasion as the result of arson. It was estimated that there was about $22 million worth of damage caused by arson. I've told you about the 24-hour toll-free telephone number. I've told you about the posters that advertise this particular hotline. I've told you about the fact of identifying burned-out buildings with some identification.

Smoke detectors — we've gone through that.

Let me see what else we've got here on Arson Alert that I can help you with: the toll-free number; the building placards; the arson reporting system; seven fire commissioners' vehicles are completed in a high-profile manner — they've all been identified; magnetic signs for local assistant fire commissioners; standard uniforms — red coveralls for fire commissioner staff are underway; control centres operation room was completed earlier on. There is a brand-new liaison method developed with the fire service and police authorities and the insurance industry.

The deputy informs me that the regional office staff increases in Nanaimo are the four which I already mentioned, and for the fire academy there's an increase of five there. I think that's about all I've got here. If you have an additional question. If I can help you I will b able to determine the answer, but I don't appear to have any additional material on that that would interest you right now.

MRS. WALLACE: There are a couple of items under this vote that I would like to raise with the Attorney-General. The first has to do with the volunteer fire protection groups. I think last year was the first time that moneys were allocated to really give any meaningful assistance to those groups. I would wonder whether the Attorney-General would be willing to tell the House just how much was actually given to those volunteer groups and what form those kinds of grants took. Also, what is the plan? Is it an accelerated plan? I’m concerned, when I see this particular budget cut back, as to whether or not that program is going to continue, because that should be an ever-growing and increasing kind of a program with additional assistance available.

I notice that there is an item in this budget — grants, contributions and subsidies — that was not there before. I'm wondering if that is allocated specifically to the volunteer firefighters. I would like some specifics on what has gone on with that particular program, Mr. Attorney-General.

I understand that the Attorney-General does not have the specifics with him. You don’t know whether or not there is more or less money allocated this year than last for that particular function?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The amount allocated in this year's estimates for grants, contributions and subsidies is $96,500. That amount is intended to upgrade equipment for volunteer fire departments. That's the general intention there.

MRS. WALLACE: That amount of money is, I take it, for the volunteer.... I thank the Attorney-General for that. The other item I wanted to raise with him was the problem that he knows I have some concern about. I've had considerable correspondence with him regarding it. It is fire protection in highrise buildings.

The Attorney-General may be aware that I have a constituent, a professional engineer. who has a design involving an alternate form of egress from highrise buildings. The Attorney-General has reviewed this' he's reviewed it with the fire marshal. My concern is that....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That one?

MRS. WALLACE: No, not that one. This particular gentleman went to the National Research Council, as you suggested. He was told by the person he saw there that his

[ Page 542 ]

particular design was probably superior to the sky van — I believe that's the one you had there.

This man has an idea that is apparently sound as far as engineering principles are concerned; it's reasonably cheap, and certainly effective. He was told by the National Research Council he should first get a contractor to use it instead of his usual elevators, and then persuade him to leave it on the building after the construction was completed. Then, later, he should come to the research people and say: "Look, here's a new fire escape." This seems a very cumbersome sort of approach.

This particular vote we are talking about is supposed to be for research and development in fire-prevention methods. I'm not going to argue the pros or cons of whether or not this man's equipment is the one best way to get in and out of highrise buildings, but the Attorney-General is probably aware that highrise buildings are firetraps. It's very difficult to get people out of a highrise building. You can have stairways with doors that close, but those doors get propped open; they get smoke-filled.

Here is an outside egress suggested, and I would urge the Attorney-General to reconsider his decision and have his ministry look into this. Under this vote, where you have money for research and development of fire-prevention, a trial building should be constructed, and the government should get involved in seeing that this outside egress is tried out.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the same thing, isn't it?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not saying it should be this particular design, but something should be spearheaded by this government to ensure that those people who live in highrises do have the protection. They pay taxes the same as anyone else. They pay for fire protection, and they are not really covered by fire protection. I would urge the Attorney-General to involve his ministry in taking action to come up with an alternative egress for highrise dwellers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would very much like to thank the lady member for her expression of concern about highrise buildings; it continues to be a monumental problem.

As a matter of fact, I met the gentleman — I hope I'm speaking about the same gentleman — in Vancouver who invented the Evacusystem, and this matter was referred to the fire marshal for consideration.

I'm speaking from memory now, but I do believe one state in the United States has considered relaxing its building codes to permit this as a method of alternative egress. I've requested additional specifics, both of him and from officials, as to what the status of that is in that particular state.

At the present time this is not accepted as an alternative method of egress. There still have to be the methods that are — what will I say? — conventional.

I'm speaking from a completely untrained position when I make this comment. But it seems to me it will work — unless it gets stuck, or something. But it is being looked into, and it is obvious that a great deal of work has been done by the people involved. It looks very deserving of additional attention.

MRS. WALLACE: Would you be willing to let me have a copy of that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd be delighted to send you a copy.

Vote 35 approved.

Vote 36: British Columbia Racing Commission, $455,990 — approved.

Vote 37: film classification, $125,362 — approved.

Vote 38: land registry program, $6,172,021 — approved.

Vote 39: order-in-council Patients Review Board, $83,692 — approved.

On vote 40: building occupancy charges, $32,204,000.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister explain the 50 percent increase in his rental costs? Is he renting the Bayshore Inn? He's gone from $21 million to $32 million. They must be housing juvenile delinquents in the — what's the name of that hotel? They spend $10 million for the cost of housing delinquents in God-knows-how-many hotels.

What's the reason for the very large increase? I don't want the minister to start the trend which is happening in his estimates — that not only is he taking questions as notice in the question period, but he's now got into the habit of taking as notice questions in his estimates. Can you tell me why there is a $10 million increase in the occupancy? What buildings have you taken over? Does this include a new jail which you haven't told us about, or what?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, at times I'm really forced to side with Gloria — he can be an unreasonable man.

The increase in cost, sir?

MR. LEVI: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to do it on the basis of 20 questions? It's not the Bayshore Inn; it's not the Empress Hotel; it's not the Notel-Motel in Duncan. Guess what? It's block 71 in Vancouver — the new courthouse.

Vote 40 approved.

On vote 41: computer and consulting charges, $1,667,623.

MR. LEVI: I want to ask a question about computer and consulting charges, which is down $1 million. In earlier debates I made reference to a report which was done by the deputy ministers in respect to the B.C. Systems Corporation, and at that time there was severe criticism about the phasing out of the justice information system that had been set up and operating for two years. Now am I to take it from the reduction in the vote, which is almost $1 million, that this represents the saving on the phasing out of that system?

You had a justice information system that was operating. According to the deputy ministers — not your deputy

[ Page 543 ]

minister, but the deputy ministers of the major users of the B.C. Systems Corporation services — part of the report referred to the phasing out of a very valuable justice information system. Now does this significant reduction in your computer service costs represent that phasing out? If not, what does it represent? I know these are very complex questions for the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It does not represent a phasing out, sir. The costs last year were $1.6 million, approximately, and this is a closer estimate to actual costs.

Vote 41 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 42: minister's office, $133,005.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words about the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. During the past year the ministry has been involved in a period of consolidation and some maturing for what is a relatively new ministry in the government. During the first years of the ministry the most common challenge was one of introducing and updating statutes that would offer protection to consumers, renters, investors, borrowers and others in our society in areas where they were particularly vulnerable and where there was some demonstration of abuses or problems in the past.

Once those laws were put in place, it became obvious that our new challenge within the ministry was one of internal structure or restructuring in order to administer the laws in an efficient manner and provide services to the people of the province. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, steps have been taken in recent months to improve the ministry's effectiveness in these areas by reorganizing our central support services to all the factions within the ministry — consumer, corporate, rentalsman's office, liquor distribution, liquor control. These are no longer dependent on small, isolated and sometimes inadequate internal services. It has been consolidated, and this will offer a great deal more efficiency in our service.

Mr. Chairman, we've been able to strengthen our finance, our personnel and the administrative service, to enhance our administrative efficiency and accountability. We've been able to pool our policy-planning and research resources, thankfully all without increasing bureaucracy, and in almost all instances utilizing existing staff.

Another part of this process is this ministry's substantial across-the-board development of computer applications: in many instances this will literally bring us out of a very antiquated system into modern technology, and in all instances it will allow the ministry to cope with an increasing growth in our activities within our resources as they are now without expansion in an economic sense. We should be able to meet increasing demands of the public and expectations of the citizens of the province without a great deal of growth in bureaucracy or a great deal of growth in cost.

Some examples of these projects, Mr. Chairman, include in the corporate affairs division the computerization of the companies office, which it is hoped will speed the process of incorporation, filing and searches: a new computer system for central registry; and a new modern inventory-management system for the liquor distribution branch. While the other applications in other parts of the ministry may be somewhat smaller, they have in common an improvement of service to the public and cost savings to the government.

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a large and diversified ministry. We are. as I suggested, making every effort to consolidate our activities so that we operate as a cohesive unit. In the eyes of the general public perhaps we are best known on the consumer side, and I would like to offer a few remarks relating to the consumer side of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

One item of interest is that the ministry introduced the Motor Dealers Licensing Act, proclaimed on January 1 of this year, and since that date approximately 1,500 motor vehicle dealers in the province have registered. The ministry and its officials have been in constant touch with motor dealers and consumers to read back to us that which they see taking place in the marketplace, in an attempt to ensure that the legislation and the regulations are workable and fair and are producing something constructive.

Another example of an attempt to offer additional protection to the public was the Travel Agents Registration Act, which entered the second year of its operation in February of this year. About 600 agents in British Columbia have registered under the Act. The fund stands at approximately $180,000 at the present time. The fund is made up entirely from contributions by travel agents and the wholesalers who are involved in that industry. The ministry has been able to assist about 200 consumers to receive about $85,000 in claims through the fund. In one case there were 20 vacationers from our province stranded in Hawaii, and our offices were advised. Apparently there was a failure by a Vancouver agent and the people had been threatened with eviction from their condominiums, I believe they were, down in Hawaii. We learned of the situation and approved payment from the travel assurance fund. My staff contacted the owners down in Hawaii, we guaranteed payment, and the people were permitted to continue on with their vacation without interruption, without being thrown out. So that area has improved very much. There are still some minor modifications that could be made to see that it works better, and some of the agents are still concerned about the implications. However, generally it's going very well.

An integral part of ensuring consumer protection is the ministry's commitment to providing assistance, educational materials and information on consumer matters to the public of our province. The education and information branch is increasing its activities in this area. We're producing new materials: we're producing new brochures on consumer issues. We plan to offer regular weekly contributions to most of the newspapers in the province with examples of consumer claims — problems associated with consumers based on actual examples — and how the problems have been resolved if, indeed, they have been resolved.

The ministry has improved its administration of the Debt Collection Act by providing additional enforcement staff and upgrading its regulation of collection agents and private bailiffs throughout the province. About a month ago a complete review of the debt collection legislation was begun to ensure that the laws adequately protect consumers in this province from harassment or what could be described

[ Page 544 ]

as abusive collection practices. The field of debt collection will be reviewed with particular attention devoted to the rights and responsibilities of the private bailiff industry.

Mr. Chairman, a specific problem which was before consumers in the province was resolved in the past year when the problem of General Motors engine switches on some models of 1977 automobiles was brought to the attention of the ministry. The ministry entered into negotiations with General Motors and an agreement was reached after very lengthy negotiations. It seems to have satisfied the concerns of those customers who had purchased an automobile which contained an engine which they hadn't anticipated. They were compensated by way of a $200 payment. Other provinces in the country have apparently now begun negotiations with General Motors to resolve the problem on similar lines; Quebec and Prince Edward Island have entered into similar agreements now.

Tax rebating was an area of many consumer complaints. Investigation of rebating services resulted in the prosecution of a Vancouver-based tax discounter, and about $50,000 was returned to consumers because it had been determined that they had not received the full amount allotted under the Act — 85 percent. My ministry was also successful in encouraging two large conventional lenders to enter into the field of tax rebate services for the tax season, and indications show that the Beneficial Finance Co. of Canada and Vancouver City Savings Credit Union dealt with the tax rebate question much to the satisfaction of their customers. There is ample evidence and experience now to show that the tax rebating services may be reformed without a great many problems. The ministry has encouraged all consumers and citizens in the province to, if at all possible, wait for their refund rather than sell their tax refund for a discount.

We have also continued with grants to consumer groups and consumer protection services to the extent of nearly $160,000 in the present fiscal year.

On the corporate side of the ministry I'm sure that some members will be encouraged to learn that the staggering growth of business activity in our province has continued this year, resulting in an overall increase of filings in corporations and assets of between 25 and 30 percent.

On the legislative side of the corporate division we're continuing to adjust and review our legislative base with a view to updating the relevant sections of legislation, reflecting current activities and practices, and implementing major deregulation opportunities wherever those opportunities arise for us.

One of our major corporate projects over the past year has been to study the province's capital markets, and the methods by which capital is raised. Part of that study and consideration by the ministry was by way of a report known as the Schroeder report, which we commissioned in 1977. That report has been a valuable starting point for the review; we are presently reviewing this report and other studies which are involved in the same question. We are attempting to place the recommendations in the overall context of the securities field in our province, with some identification of similar problems in other parts of the country.

The challenge of simplifying and codifying corporate legislation in our province is being met very well by the ministry, and there is now an excellent rapport between the ministry and the business community. I'm sure one of the reasons for this rapport has been our practice to seek information and advice, and to share with many elements in the business community our concerns and our attitudes as to how some of these problems can be resolved. It's not experimental, but the exercise has certainly proved satisfactory and very valuable.

Mr. Chairman, another thing that affects the corporate community was our moving two offices to Vancouver's downtown area. The superintendent of credit unions, cooperatives and trust companies and the superintendent of brokers, insurance, real estate are now settled in downtown Vancouver, and this move has turned out to be a correct move. It has resolved many problems. It has provided greater access to the superintendents' offices, and seems to be working well after an initial problem associated with change in staff and location. We're continuing to consolidate in the Vancouver area by continuing to move more and more into a single building.

I have a quick comment on the question of the rentalsman's office and the Rent Review Commission. Approximately 9,000 rental units have been decontrolled — for want of a better term — since decontrol began. There were 37 appeals, and I am advised that in only one case was it necessary for the Rent Review Commission to take action to reduce the increase. It's our finding that landlords have accepted their responsibility, and appear to have been reasonable and responsible. We continue, of course, to monitor the rental market to identify any other possibilities of decontrol on rent.

One of the major functions of the ministry is our liquor control and licensing branch. Those policies are also under active review, with a view to incorporating into regulations some of the practices, procedures and requirements affecting licensees which are now simply done by policy or guidelines. We intend to see that they become part of statutes or regulations.

In conclusion, the watchword for the ministry in the months ahead at least will be synchronization of the internal workings of the ministry, in an attempt to offer uniform excellence in our provision of services to the citizens of the province — more specifically, to the consumers, the renters, the borrowers, the investors and the business community.

MR. LEVI: We're not going to keep the minister or his staff too long. But I would like to raise a number of issues directly with the minister and ask him to comment on them.

I did ask him a question on March 28 of this year in the question period. I will read it to the minister and then I want to make some comments on it. I said that last May 18 and May 24 — and I'm talking now about 1978 — I asked the minister's predecessor a question regarding the evidence of kickbacks that was in the hands of the staff of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

On May 24, 1978, the then minister replied that he had written to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs federally because there was some discussion about the Combines Investigation Act. I asked the minister at that time if he could tell us the results of the correspondence, what the position was of the federal ministry and what was done in respect to the evidence available. The minister took the question as notice. He didn't come back.

I would like to just talk for a moment about that particular issue. I would like to know whether the minister or any of his staff are monitoring the hearings that are going on in the royal commission which is dealing, in effect, with

[ Page 545 ]

the problem of kickbacks and other arrangements that are made in the retail field, particularly in the food area. These hearings have been going on for some time.

Does the minister have anyone monitoring that? Are they familiar with what is going on, other than what they might pick up from the newspapers? The minister may know that we did try to get the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, when it was looking at the whole question of food, to look into the question here in the province. It may very well be that we may be in a much better position later on. All I will say is that a case is before the courts in relation to this issue so we may be able to learn something from what is produced in the evidence. Perhaps the minister might comment on that and what he's doing in respect to monitoring that commission.

He made mention of the Schroeder report. I am continually confounded by the remarks made, both by the Premier and now by the minister. They've had a report done which was an extensive report. I did have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Thompson who oversaw the report. He didn't write it, although he had a lot of help. For the past year the government has been looking at it. One of the difficulties with this government is that they have reports and they don't release them. We're not able at this particular time to take a good look at some of the things that have been happening in respect to the investment field.

We were told by the Premier that it is not released because part of the report deals with what goes on in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Well, that may very well be. I said at that time and I would say to the minister that if it's a question of bringing in new legislation in respect to the stock market, fine, then don't release that part of the report. Let's get a look at the report in respect to the capital market. Surely that would be of interest to everybody in the province — to the investment field, to people who invest. Leave aside the stock exchange thing. We can wait till eventually they get around to releasing it or deciding, whether they're going to change the rules.

We know part of the reasons that impelled the previous minister to get this study going, but again, I say, leave aside the stock exchange thing. Let's have some information; release that part of the report that deals with the capital markets. It's very important for people. The minister talked about the number of incorporations that have happened in the province last year and the year before, the amount of assets that have been brought in. Fine, then let's look at that and look at the whole question of the capital market situation in British Columbia and find out exactly what is going on. That would be reflective of an open government, a government that is concerned about improving the investment climate. They apparently have a document which may do that. But we won't know. It's well over a year since the report has been in the hands of the government. One can get very cynical about what they're doing with it. We don't know whether they're censoring it or whether they're deciding they're never going to release it. I would ask the minister to make some comments. Leave aside, as I said, the stock exchange question. We don't necessarily have to deal with that at this point in time.

I would ask the minister about the statement he made last week. He made a statement about the exploding bottles which have been causing some accidents. At that time he indicated that he had no jurisdiction in this matter. I would like to know, because the federal Solicitor-General, Mr. Lawrence, has also indicated that he has no jurisdiction.

I'm just wondering whether the minister has given any thought to looking at some sections in the Health Act — section 23, which deals with the production of mineral water and that kind of thing — and doing his own piece of, legislation in order to accomplish the kinds of things that he would like to see, which is that these bottles do not continue to be distributed.

Again, it is my understanding that the federal minister doesn't seem to have any jurisdiction anyway, so who would be encroaching on whose jurisdiction? I guess it appears that nobody has any jurisdiction if that is the case. Maybe the minister could get his colleague to do something under the Health Act which would assist people. We're thinking of all consumers. of course, but particularly of children. Perhaps the minister might want to make a comment about that.

The minister. I would hope, would make some comment, not say that it's future policy, but there was a cooperative Act tabled last year. It was widely circulated. I think it's a practice that the government should be applauded for. They undertook the tabling of legislation, which gave the public a good opportunity to took at it. But at the moment, I don’t know where we are with that particular legislation.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'm also informed that there is some pressing need to look at credit union legislation. Perhaps the minister might tell us what's happening in respect to the request from the credit union people about getting the legislation.

Again, we're dealing with the question of consumers, which involves everybody in the public. I hope that the minister continues the practice of his predecessor. If he's doing legislation, he should table it. let it sit there and wait until the next session so that we can get an adequate amount of discussion. The whole question of getting input from the community is very important.

The minister made mention of General Motors and the engine exchange. That was reasonably concluded about a year ago. He's probably aware of a case in the Victoria area — and there are two or three other cases; not as many as we're led to believe — which amounted to the fact that the individual did not purchase the warranty plan, and as a result he had a great deal of trouble with a transmission which shouldn't have been in the car in the first place. The ministry has not been able to do too much about this. However, probably 40 percent of complaints to the ministry deal with the area of automobiles. I'm not now dealing with the question of second-hand cars and that kind of thing, because the Motor Dealers Licensing Act has made some progress in that area. But there are some very serious problems in respect to warranties and the apparent practice of the major automobile manufacturers setting out to mislead the public in respect to some of the products they produce.

The minister referred to a situation where there was an engine placed in a car which was not the appropriate engine, yet it was advertised as something else. There is also the particular case in respect to the transmission. It seems to me it should be something his ministry should be looking at in terms of the general practice of the major automobile

[ Page 546 ]

dealers. He would have to take on the proportions of Jack the Giant Killer if he were taking on the major automobile dealers. There is no doubt that there are some very serious problems with respect to the purchasing of new vehicles. We don't want to be relying continually on the federal Corporate and Consumer Affairs. The ministry has got into the field a little bit with the negotiations with General Motors. There should be some continuing negotiations and some study done on some of the problems. Just because there are no complaints doesn't necessarily mean that there are no problems, and many people know about these. I hope that the ministry will look into this, because it's a very serious question.

In order to clue the minister in, I was dealing with a Mr. McEwan, who had trouble with the transmission. It was a General Motors product. As I said, apparently he did not purchase the warranty but nevertheless had a great deal of trouble with the car. That is a problem that needs to be looked at, in terms of the ministry developing real expertise about this.

I want to discuss for a moment the Credit Unions Act. I presume the minister is familiar with the Corporate Financial Regulatory Services Weekly Summary. In the March 30, 1979, edition there was reference to a hearing in relation to the credit union versus the Credit Union Reserve Board. I presume his officials are aware of it. I want to bring the minister's attention to the final statement made by Mr. Herbert, who was the vice-chairman of this particular hearing. He's making reference to the Credit Unions Act, quoting from a decision made by Mr. Geddes when he was chairman. He said: "The simple fact is that the Credit Unions Act insofar as it concerns the jurisdiction and procedure of the commission is a mess. We urge those responsible to reconsider the statutory provisions." I ask the minister to comment about that. If it's under review, fine. Are there hearings planned for the people affected? I know there are some discussions going on.

That's basically all I want to say at the moment. I've asked the minister a number of questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The federal government is conducting inquiries into the concern about kickbacks in various industries, including the food industry. We are not monitoring the hearings per se by having someone in attendance, but there has been a considerable amount of discussion with the federal government on this, and we have let our concerns be known to them. The member referred to a letter which had been referred to before in this House; I have not been able to find the letter that was referred to, I think, a couple of years ago. There may have been an error made when it was suggested that a letter ad been written — I'm not quite sure that letter ever was written — but certainly we have discussed it with officials. And the member is correct that at the moment there is a court action regarding a charge.

The bottles question, which was mentioned in the House last week, continues to draw a lot of concern across the country. It would appear that, to the best of our information, the federal government does in deed have jurisdiction over this. Should they wish to make use of the Hazardous Products Act, it seems clear that they can. The federal minister did say that he was not about to ban the bottle at this time, but he would perhaps bring in certain standards to improve the design or quality of the product. There have been a number of suggestions made on these bottles. One suggestion was plasticizing the bottle; another was using different labels, which the glass would adhere to in the event of an explosion or break. So there is a fair amount going on. We've been very, very fortunate in the province; we've not had any serious incidents reported to us. I don't know whether that is because of where the bottles were manufactured or the manner in which the bottles are filled. A large number of retail companies have taken the bottles from the shelves, and I think we can resolve that problem quite satisfactorily.

The transmission problem. I understand that some people have been advised or some people believe that there are several hundred owners involved — we have not been so advised. We know of three or four cases in Vancouver and one in Victoria, and the information provided to me is that these cases have been resolved. It's quite possible individual consumers may have had difficulty, but my understanding is that the problems have been resolved. My information is that it was a new-style transmission and perhaps it didn't have the capacity to handle the manner in which some of the vehicles were used — towing trailers or boats or whatever. I think that has, to a large degree, been resolved.

The commission vice-chairman mentioned the Credit Unions Act. I believe he was quite correct in saying that it needs to be cleaned up. The Act is a bit messy and it does require a certain amount of cleanup. We intend to do that. There are certain aspects of the Credit Unions Act which perhaps require more immediate remedial action than all of it, and we'll move in that sequence. We'll try to respond first to that which the credit union movement identifies as being absolutely essential, and then try and clean the Act up generally to resolve some of the other problems.

The federal government and various provinces are presently discussing the feasibility of warranty legislation with a view to having some uniformity across the country, and it's quite likely that this will result in fairly uniform warranty legislation across the country.

The member, Mr. Chairman, referred to the first portion of the Schroeder report, which dealt with capital markets and so on. What I have been doing with that report and what staff people have been doing is, as I said, to attempt to develop a paper based in part on the Schroeder report, and I felt it would be improper to release the Schroeder report prior to compiling the information. But the member, I think quite appropriately, splits the Schroeder report into two sections, and we'll give serious consideration to perhaps releasing that first part earlier than we would the balance.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell us whether there has been any change in the process of approval for neighbourhood pubs? There appears to be an impression about that some of the decision-making actually gets to the minister's level. Can the minister tell us how many of these decisions he's had to make in respect to neighbourhood pubs? Is he granting them? Have there been any appeals? If that's not the case, then that's fine and he should say so. Is the minister at all involved in the ultimate approval of any of the neighbourhood pub licences?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the Act was changed to permit an appeal to the minister when the general manager refused a licence — and it is only in that area.

[ Page 547 ]

MR. LEVI: I have one other question, around what appears to be a phony definition of what "as the crow flies" means, exactly, in terms of the measure of the distance between where there is an existing hotel and where somebody wants to put in a neighbourhood pub.

Three people have written to me about running into this particular definition. Was it the intent of the original regulations really to see this as measuring distance as the crow flies, or were we really talking about distance of travel — that is, by human beings and not by crows. That has created some problems. Some people have been refused licences because the "as the crow flies" definition considerably reduces the amount of distance. You have to have a mile between an existing place and the one you have in mind. In many cases this has been reduced.

Is this a definition that is hard and fast? It has been used in sonic decisions. Is it the intention to carry on with such a definition or are they really looking at the whole question of how people travel on the road? Perhaps the minister might want to comment on that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The one-mile "as the crow flies" is a policy guideline. I believe that the reason for the one-mile separation of licensed premises originally concerned density and how many licensed premises were within a specific area.

It does cause some rather strange situations. If you were to interpret "as the crow files" strictly, it's quite possible you could have a location one mile across a major river but many, many miles separated by road. In fact you get many alternative explanations of the distance because of that restriction of one mile. You get people who will insist that it may be a mile in a straight line but by walking it's a certain distance, by driving it's a longer distance and so on.

It's not a hard and fast rule; it's simply a guideline. There have been licences granted within that one mile as the crow flies. Usually we identify by way of the inspector's report the density of the number of licensed premises within a given area, perhaps within a mile from that central point, just to determine how many licensed premises there are. It's a rule that has been relaxed in several instances because of other conditions and other details which have been provided.

MR. LEVI: Just one other question. I would like the minister to comment on the change of policy which came about in respect to the reduction of the allowance. Perhaps I might just read the letter and then get the impact. The minister wrote to a colleague of his. This came down as a result of somebody writing me a letter. "I refer to your memorandum of March 23, 1978. The agency agreement is a contractual document agreed upon by both parties." This is to do with the reduction of agency commissions from 10 percent to 5 percent. You did reply to Mr. Bachen at Dawson Landing saying: "In 1975 the government policy provided for the establishment of agency liquor stores and to establish such terms and conditions including the remuneration as deemed appropriate." And then you lay out the formula.

Perhaps the minister might comment as to why you found it necessary to do the reduction from 10 percent to 5 percent. After all, if there's one profit-making enterprise in this government, it's the liquor industry. The people who live in remote areas do in part depend on this agency for their income and yet it's been reduced. I think that in the letter that was written to the Minister of Lands and Urban Affairs from one of his constituents, Mr. Bronson Little, he makes a complaint about it. He said: "We do not feel our commission in this case should be reduced to 5 percent. The agreement does not stipulate that a beer strike would make it impossible for an agency store to stay open under the $70,000 figure. ''

Now why the reduction? I don't quite understand this at all. After all, these people do provide a service, yet you decided to cut it from 10 to 5 percent. Is that a cost-saving measure, or what? It seems very inappropriate, particularly in that ministry.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the money associated with that reduction from 10 percent to 5 percent after a certain amount has been reached in no way saves money for the government, of course, because it reduces that amount after the $70.000. which I believe was the figure where it begins to change.

There were a number of reasons for that originally. It was felt that as volume grew in an area, then perhaps the costs associated with additional volume could be accommodated by a lesser commission.

The figure requires a review, if it's required to be there at all. That's under consideration now, because of a number of letters — I think we received about three or four complaints from agents. I think it was made clear to them originally that those were the terms. But we’re looking at that $70,000 figure to see if it is reasonable and if it's necessary at all, or whether it might be easier or reasonable just to give a flat commission for product sold, or to raise it, perhaps, to $100,000 or $125.000. But that probably would simply mean that in a year or two we’d have to reconsider that figure as a ceiling.

I appreciate their concern. They feel that once they reach a certain point it's diminishing returns and perhaps it might affect their operations. But we're giving that consideration.

MR. LEVI: Just as a final comment, I think that probably what's missing from the discussion on this is some consideration given to the people who provide this service. I'm not now talking so much about the volume, but rather about the fact that they are there and that they're kind of a distribution point for the liquor administration branch. That should be part of the consideration and the equation. and not strictly on the basis of the volume question. I agree with the minister that to set it at $70,000 and then go to $100,000 is not very practical. It should be done, if they can find a formula, on the basis of an increase, of a set amount of percentage so that you don't have to keep changing the regulations. I'm glad that they're looking at it.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman. my question is related to the granting of licences for pubs. Now I know that this isn't the forum to bring up specific cases because I'm sure the minister has many of those. I find it more beneficial to deal with your officials and those who are in charge on a specific case.

Generally speaking, I just wanted to say to the minister there has recently been a very controversial pub in North Burnaby which I'm sure you're aware of. Some of the points which were brought up by the group which was

[ Page 548 ]

against the granting of a licence for the pub appeared to me to have some validity in the sense that some of the present regulations do raise some questions. The minister must have a lot of material on this. Is he considering, after weighing some of the concerns expressed not only by this group but maybe by other people who've applied, that there perhaps should be an analysis of the present regulations to see if some of these concerns which these people have brought out do have some validity? There's the whole matter of pre-site clearance granting. Basically, why do some people get a licence and others don't? It never seems quite clear to anyone just what the basis is. I know it varies from community to community. I was wondering if the minister, now that he's been in office several months in this ministry, is completely satisfied that the present regulations as they apply to the granting of licences are satisfactory.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're speaking of neighbourhood pub licences specifically. I certainly am not satisfied that the regulations and the procedures are the ultimate because it's such an inexact situation. You may have a situation in a community in the province where a pub licence is granted, and in precisely the same circumstances elsewhere it's denied.

With neighbourhood pubs the most common problem is that the majority of people are in favour of them because of the atmosphere, but not that many are in favour of them in their neighbourhood. This is the problem. It's like group homes or any other situation. It's such an inexact thing to grasp because circumstances are so different in each community. We rely to a large degree on the neighbourhood attitude by way of survey and so on. We had to develop a procedure. They had to start somewhere. We felt that it was more reasonable to ask the applicant to apply to us for pre-site clearance rather than go through the council rezoning if necessary, taking the survey and spending a considerable amount of money only to come back to our general manager to be denied. We felt that we should tell them up front if they had any opportunity at all of getting a licence, not that they would get it, but at least we wouldn't be turning it down because we were opposed to it, but rather there were other circumstances and reasons.

We are attempting to come to grips with those problems. Recently we had a meeting in Vancouver with representatives from all sections of the industry that deal with liquor distribution — hotels, motels, restaurants, neighbourhood pubs, representatives from the RCMP, Vancouver city police and representatives from the city, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and others. We had an excellent meeting discussing the various problems associated with licences. Some very intelligent suggestions were made by representatives. We are actively responding to many of those. For the first time, the people who represent the Neighbourhood Pub Association, the B.C. Hotel Association and the Restaurant Association had an opportunity to understand the municipal problems associated with licences and some of the policing problems associated with the proliferation of licences. I think that will come to resolve some of those problems.

The big problem is the inexact situation involved in this. The other member mentioned distances. When does a mile really mean a mile? Is it going to be that clear that if it's within a mile there's no possible way at all? Sometimes that's not practical. I don't know how we're going to resolve it — if ever. But we're trying to develop a more orderly system whereby a person would know well in advance if his application was doomed to failure. We are just as concerned about those who believe they're going to get a licence and fail as those who are pushing or complaining because they didn't get a licence at all. We're trying to resolve it by having a very easily understood and uniform set of standards. But it is very difficult to draft.

Vote 42 approved.

Vote 43: executive and administration, $586,979 — approved.

Vote 44: consumer affairs, $2,736,650 — approved.

Vote 45: corporate affairs, $4,159,986 — approved.

Vote 46: rentalsman, $1,968,397 — approved.

On vote 47: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,241,997.

MRS. WALLACE: I have written to the minister and I know I'm probably rushing it because he hasn't had time to respond, but I do have some very grave concerns about the auxiliary employees in the liquor distribution system. I took this up with the Attorney-General when this was his responsibility. I took it up with the former minister who was responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now I'm going to raise it with this minister because the situation has just not improved.

As a case in point, I have sent to the minister an outline of what has happened to one of my constituents who is an auxiliary employee with the liquor distribution branch. That employee has been an auxiliary employee for five years. He is attempting to support a wife and family and in that five-year period of time he has simply had a bread-and butter kind of existence. I sent the minister his schedule for June, which was a series of some 11 part days for the entire month. That's a sort of sample of the kind of employment this man has been receiving; and this is a particularly good example really, in June, because certainly the sales are up during the summer months. It is a very bad situation that these auxiliary employees are facing. This man has attempted to bulletin out, but even with five years' seniority he is still in a position where he has not sufficient seniority to get on on a permanent basis with the distribution system.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has to give some consideration to changing the whole setup so there is provision for those people who are involved in working with the distribution system over a period of time to get into permanent positions, because it's very unfair to ask a person to carry on for a period of five years in an auxiliary position. It's impossible to provide an adequate standard of living for his family. I think I sent the minister a copy of this particular constituent's wife's letter. She wrote to me outlining some of the things that have been facing them over the years since this has been going on — a heart-rending letter in fact.

There are a couple of other concerns I have too, particularly in relation to the Duncan outlet where we have no separate outlet for beer. There isn't enough room in that store to handle the returns and the beer supplies. The

[ Page 549 ]

employees are so busy getting rid of those empties and trying to find space on the floor for the empties and to handle the stocks of beer that are in the store that very often there is not time to even replenish the shelves. There is a need for more employees in that store and there is a need for a second store in Duncan. If that sort of thing happened, then the problem of my constituent who has been an auxiliary employee for a five-year period would automatically disappear because there would be a full-time position for him. I would urge the minister to have a look at that situation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just a quick response, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I don't have a reply to your letter. I have been advised that your letter has been received, but I haven't had the opportunity of going through it. I gather it is a one-person situation right now, so we'll have to look at it from that point of view.

The beer bottle situation is a problem in all our stores, and we have resolved part of it by a little bit better system with the people who pick up the bottles, particularly in the major centres. We're looking at alternatives to try to find out how we can remove the necessity of sorting, stacking and storing the empty bottles in our stores. As you know, the Mineral Act requires that they bring them in for a refund. And that's what has created the problem. Most stores were not designed to handle it; we are trying to come up with a resolution. I appreciate the problem in Duncan; it's common throughout the province.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister looking at a separate store? I understand that is what has happened in Nanaimo, where a separate store has a volume about similar to the Duncan area. I'm also asking whether he's considering extending the hours of the Duncan store. It's open only on Friday evening, and is the only outlet in that area.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We certainly want to service that community, and if extended hours are required, there'd be no problem. We're very flexible on hours, and if it's required in the community we'll give it serious consideration. I can't see any problems.

We have not given consideration to opening a beer store in Duncan, although the idea is attractive throughout the province. There seems to be room for beer stores in certain areas because of the traffic associated with beer purchases. It could be part of the resolution in handling this very large quantity of material.

MR. COCKE: I'd like the minister to explain the criteria for specialty distribution, such as the larger bottles, the smaller bottles, et cetera. I notice, for example, we have two stores in Westminster. One is the old-fashioned kind where you line up and order everything you want, and the clerk finds it for you. Incidentally, there is a very poor selection in that store. I suspect there's a little bit of elitism around that by virtue of its location. Second, the other, which is a sort of a cash-and-carry type of store, for supermarket effect, has in my view a selection that is poor, for a city the size of New Westminster. You could then go to some of the large shopping centres, et cetera: or you can by luck or, possibly, good management by inquiry find a liquor store with the additional service of these specialty items.

Incidentally, while I'm talking about specialty items, as the party Whip, I'd like to see Stu Leggatt in here as fast as he can get!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to acknowledge the questions offered by the member for New Westminster. Some of the stores require updating. The specialty products are handled by only a few stores because of low-volume sale. We try to locate them as best we can throughout the province, but there's generally a low volume associated with the items. That's why they're not carried by all stores. Again, it's a space problem.

MR. COCKE: I would like the minister to look at New Westminster very carefully with respect to more specialty items. I'll be keeping an eye on Westminster, and if by the time his estimates come around again, and we haven't seen any improvement, he can expect to hear from me to a greater extent than he has today.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: Corporate and Financial Services Commission, $68,500 — approved.

Vote 49: Auditor Certification Board, $3,000 — approved.

Vote 50: building occupancy charges, $1,495,000 — approved.

Vote 51: computer and consulting charges, $1,132,038 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On vote 56: minister's office, $164,683.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I reported to you last year, the economy of this great province is indeed going well under the policies of this great and dynamic ministry. I know that you are just waiting anxiously to say "aye" to vote me the money so that I can get on and carry on the job of creating jobs for these British Columbians, and the young and growing work force that we have here now, and the people who are coming to British Columbia, indeed, from other provinces in Canada to seek opportunities, once again because of the dynamic policies of this great government.

Now I know that you will notice a tremendous increase in the estimates of this ministry this year. I know that under close scrutiny you will recognize that most of that money is for our cost-shared programs where we put out a little seed money to the private sector and when we put out a dollar they invest three or four times that. That is really what is happening.

As you know, we've gone to Ottawa: we did our homework and we went down and negotiated a lot of new programs. Those programs are really working; they're even working better, Mr. Chairman, than I ever thought they'd work. As a matter of fact, the applications are coming in and small business is thriving and tourism is thriving.

The only thing I am disappointed in this year is the fact that the gentleman who set up this ministry and usually is

[ Page 550 ]

my critic is away ill. I want to wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he gets back before the session is over.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He can have the files now; we're making out fine without them, Mr. Chairman.

But seriously, the programs that we have signed with the federal government are off and running. The private sector is taking advantage of them. Oh, we've had the odd problem here and there, but I'll tell you, my friends, that when you plough new ground you are always going to have a few problems. When you plough new ground and start new innovative programs like we have, there is going to be the odd little problem.

Other than that, the economy is strong and is growing. I have great confidence in its future and I know that you will be most happy to vote me this money so that I can carry on the work of British Columbia in getting the economy rolling.

MR. COCKE: I can't believe it. It's like the will o' the wisp — here one moment and gone the next.

Anyway, I was very interested in the minister's remarks. He was telling us what a marvelous economy we have in British Columbia. I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the only thing that saved the Social Credit government in this province in terms of economic development, in terms of its economy, is the forest industry, and that was sheer good luck, nothing else. It certainly was nothing in response to anything this minister has done. He's an absolute failure. He's created chaos wherever he's gone. All you have to do, backbenchers, is sit around and listen to him for a while and you'll understand precisely what I am saying.

Thanks for coming back, Stu.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I am totally taken by surprise. Given that particular minister's penchant for long-winded addresses to this House, I thought he'd be good for at least another hour. I knew that in the first 20 minutes he never says anything, so there wasn't any point in being in the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now be kind.

MR. LEGGATT: I will be.

Mr. Chairman, there must be a great urgency to get the minister's estimates through, in view of his short, pithy and to-the-point remarks.

The one thing I did hear was that things have never been better in the province of British Columbia. I don't know. I'd just like to look at some of the things that this minister's government puts out, and examine them. Let's look at the labour force statistics. In this current report of May 1979, issued by the Ministry of Labour, the labour force is 1,232,000 and the unemployment rate for May was 8.3 percent. There was a change from April, up from 8.2 percent. British Columbia continues to have the worst record of unemployment in the country outside of the Maritimes and Quebec.

Now I can't conceive of a minister who gets up and tells us everything is coming up roses and doesn't mention the unemployment rate in the province of British Columbia. We have one of the worst records in finding jobs of any province.

My colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) quite rightly pointed out that if it wasn't for the Canadian dollar, which has had the impact on the forest industry, there wouldn't be a Social Credit government here today. You can thank the depressed dollar on the world market for your success, gentlemen, because it certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with what this government did.

I don't want to get into a long debate about the state of the economy. The economy is not in good shape. The economy is in bad shape. Nearly one out of ten people can't find a job. Ask any young person in this province what the economy is like. Ask how easy it is to find a job. And they're looking, Mr. Minister; they're out there trying to find jobs that don't exist.

MR. BRUMMET: They don't look in the right places.

MR. LEGGATT: They do look in the right place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every one of them is lazy.

MR. LEGGATT: How many jobs have you got up north? Mr. Chairman, I am told by my friends in the government that all they have to do is go to look for the jobs. You give me the number of jobs that are available in the north and then tell me how many are left after every single one of those jobs is filled. I'll tell you that unemployment rate is still going to be 8.3 percent. This is a phoney argument — 8.3 percent is a legitimate figure. Oh, I know, there are a few jobs available. Sure, but there are about 20 people looking for every single available job in the province.

But for a moment I want to get off the subject of the state of the economy, which is not good. I'm concerned about a couple of things. I would like the minister to bring the House into his confidence on a matter which is of great significance to this province, and that's the Quintette development in the northeast of British Columbia. We are, as I understand the news reports, now embarked upon negotiations with Denison Mines for the provision of a B.C. Rail link about 96 kilometres long to the Quintette coal property in north-eastern British Columbia.

I want the minister to tell us whether the level of coal royalties is under negotiation in regard to those discussions. Has Quintette been given some assurance about what the coal royalty level will be? Does the minister know what the contract price is between the Romanian purchasing agency and Denison, so that they have some conception of the actual available funds? Because that extension of some 96 kilometres is going to be very expensive.

I would like also to know whether the minister can tell the House if he has some ball-park figures in terms of the cost of that rail extension.

I would like him also to tell us whether all of the environment impact statements have been filed. Is the environmental question all settled and up to date? Equally important, I would like the minister to tell us whether the reclamation proposal by the Denison company has been filed.

Last but not least in regard to that project, I want to know whether the minister in these negotiations is considering a very serious problem all through the north — the

[ Page 551 ]

boom-bust problem in the mining industry. I am talking about Stewart, a town that is now struggling because of the difficulties with the Granduc mine. There are many, many other instances — Cassiar, Elliott Lake and others all across the north. It's marvelous when the projects are announced. It's marvelous that the jobs are created. But what happens is that once the resource leaves the ground, the people who have made their investment in their houses, who wanted to make their life in those areas, suddenly find themselves in very difficult circumstances.

That doesn't have to be. What can be done is have properly negotiated agreements with those development companies to protect the assets of the individuals in those communities. It can be done. It takes imagination but you can give a town a 50-year life. You have to have some idea of what's in the ground. You can have a pretty good estimate of how long that particular development is going to go.

In this particular instance, they're talking about a town of 5,000 to 10,000 people. Certainly we welcome this project. But let's give those 5,000 or 10,000 people some assurance that when they go there, build their houses and make their future in those towns, that they have a real future, that when that company pulls out of that instant town, everyone in the town doesn't lose their investment, as they very nearly did in a town called Ocean Falls.

With proper and appropriate master agreements with the development companies there is a way of avoiding the boom-and-bust syndrome.

I want the minister to be very careful in his negotiations. For example, he should examine the profit picture of the Exxon Corp., which is a major shareholder in this particular development. They haven't been short of ready funds these days. When they come to the bargaining table, they've got a lot of extra cash that the B.C. Railway doesn't have when it comes to the cost of producing that particular line.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I think a very careful took has to be taken at these negotiations. I will sit down. Perhaps at this point the minister would like to tell us how it is going.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to be kind to the new member, because he wasn't part of the government of British Columbia from '72 to '75. I'm proud of the job we've done in British Columbia. When you tell me the economy isn't strong, that's absolute hogwash. my friend. If you want to check the economy of any province in Canada, except Alberta, and compare it with British Columbia, you will find that our growth rate is greater than the national average. I don't want to get into a lengthy debate on this. I've got all the statistics here about the number of jobs created. I also have some statistics from when you were government. You were in opposition for a number of years; there was nothing to compare our performance with. Now we have the facts on you, and we can compare.

You can stand up in the House and talk about the economy all you want, my friend. You can talk about me personally all you want to. But I'll tell you that we’ve done a good job in British Columbia. The economy of British Columbia is strong. The policies we have brought in in the last three and a half years ensure not quick, rapid growth and instant solutions, but long-term, viable solutions. With every day that goes by those new, innovative policies we've brought in are creating jobs and long-term economic benefits for the people of this province.

You ought to talk about the lumber industry and the dollar, my friend. When you were government, there was never a higher demand for minerals or a higher demand for lumber, and the prices were never better; yet you still killed the economy. Over and above that, there was a demand for energy. What did you do? You drove.... We can have those same old arguments, if you want to stay here day in and day out. I've got the facts, and I'll be the winner. The facts are out there, and they're proven.

We just went through an election campaign. Did I hear anything about the economy? Not a word, because the economy of this province is strong and viable. With regard to northeast coal. there have probably been more studies done in the northeast with regard to developing that 8 billion, 10 billion, maybe even 20 billion tons of coal up there.... It's the best coking coal in the world. We went to Ottawa originally on this, and we've probably done more studies up there than have ever been done on any potential resource development anywhere in Canada or in the world, with regard to environment, labour, transportation networks, townsites and so on.

You asked whether we had looked at the contracts. Every time a coal company comes to us they provide us with their projections and their figures; our economists go over that so that they know exactly how they are projecting their costs. Before any infrastructure is put in or any firm deal is made, we take a very close look at the contract and at how they intend to produce the coal, their costs and the whole deal.

We don't want to fall into this trap. We've been lax in Canada in the last ten years in marketing our coking coal. The Australians have outfoxed us, and the United States has outfoxed us. We've got to quit playing the chicken-and-egg war: which comes first, the contracts or the railway and transportation support systems? We've got to say: "Look, we’ re going to take the bull by the horns. We have to export this commodity in order to remain solvent in Canada and to help balance our payments." We've got to make a decision and say: "Yes, we're going to provide the port facilities, and, yes, we’re going to provide the transportation facilities." Until we do that, we're going to keep on playing this chicken-and-egg war. The steel market is on the increase again now. It's come out of its doldrums. The projections are better than they were. We're going through another cycle of signing coal contracts.

Canada and British Columbia have to get together and make some decisions; we're working toward that end now. This contract with the Romanians that Denison Mines has is just another step closer to making that a viable project.

I've said publicly that we can't build a railway into the Quintette project on two million tons: it has to be a minimum of four million or five million tons. Somebody has to have faith enough that there are going to be other coal contracts. We have to get the port facilities open and get the railway down. And as soon as that first trainload of coal goes out of there. then the international market is going to say you are ready. Then the orders will flow. There is going to be a greater demand for coking coal. We have the best coking coal in the world, and probably the largest deposits in both the northeast and southeast of any place in the world.

[ Page 552 ]

You asked about the environmental price of the contract; I've answered that.

Coal royalties. We formulated our coal policy in the last three and a half years with regard to leasing for exploration and with regard to the coal royalty. We are receiving from our coal companies a rate of return to the people of British Columbia as good as any province in Canada. I know that the argument was brought up during the election campaign that Alberta is getting $10 a ton. I want to tell you I did a lot of research on that and I don't want to get into the argument here now, but Alberta only has two coking coal mines producing. The level of royalty on one of them is negotiated as practically nothing because they had financial difficulties. The other one is about 2¼, if I remember correctly from the research I did during the election campaign.

MR. MACDONALD: How much did Kaiser make net last year?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There we go. There's that old socialist thinking. Somebody was successful, somebody made a profit, so we've got to do as they did when they were the government — move in and take that. Never think about the consequences on the other mines and the developing mines. Certainly Kaiser made a profit last year.

MR. MACDONALD: How much?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He made a profit of about $80 million last year.

MR. MACDONALD: Net?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but how much of that, my friend, was from their oil and gas? And how much was return on investment and how many years did they lose money? Do you remember the difficulties they had?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But that's the old socialist theory: you hang up one guy who made a profit. And boy, oh, boy, are you going to bring them in like your Premier said during the election campaign and say: "Hey, we're going to look at each resource separately. Come on into my office and we'll make the deal. Sure, and if you don't make any money, we'll subsidize it and see that it goes on; and if you do make any money, we're going to take it away from you"?

We've set a policy, and if you're going to have investment in the resource industry, you've got to lay out the guidelines so that everybody knows what the rules of the game are going to be. Yes, the rules are laid down and they're going to be constant. We'll take our percentage from the profits that they make; and the more they make, the more we'll take.

AN HON. MEMBER: A percentage.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A percentage, certainly. That's the way it should be.

MR. MACDONALD: Giving away the province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, you can't argue with a socialist, because the royalty part of it is only a very small portion of the taxes that we take from a ton of coal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to tell you — and I just wish I had my figures here — but do you know how much taxes…? I haven't got the answer right here now, but I have the amount of taxes that Kaiser paid, not only to the provincial government, but to the federal government last year, and it was well over $60 million.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll get them.

Boom or bust in the north. I don't know how we're ever to bring in legislation or have control, when world markets change or financial situations change, where some outfit is going to go broke. I guess if you wanted to take the socialist attitude that you move in and keep it going at any cost, well, that's the attitude you have to take. But we have other mechanisms now which we used in Stewart. We used other mechanisms to help those people so that the tremendous financial impact wouldn't be as difficult on them individually. A lot of them moved out and they were helped by both the provincial government and the federal government. It's not the best solution — maybe not the best solution — and, Mr. Member, if you have some good solutions to offer as to how we can eradicate this economic problem forever, I'd be most happy to listen to you. But you cannot go in with taxpayers' money and prop up for ever and ever a mine that's not economically viable. And I can't really buy that solution.

With regard to a town based simply on coal development, if you're talking about the instant town mentioned in the press release of Denison Mines, we may have some day, when that area opens up, be looking at a town. But my hope is that the town will be a three-industry town. It will be based on coal development, it will be based on the potential forest industry in the area, and certainly it will be based on the petroleum industry, because the petroleum industry is in there. They've just scratched the surface.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, I thought there was no gas.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going to talk to this member, because he wasn't here. He's not responsible for the actions of some of his colleagues. I know he's taking a very sane approach to the matter of the economy of British Columbia, and I can't blame him for the failures of his colleagues.

But it is my hope when that townsite goes ahead that there are sufficient long-term contracts signed — and they have to be long-term contracts — and that it will be an economically viable community based on, as I say, coal, forestry, the petroleum industry and, indeed, tourism, because in that area there are some tourist attractions which would rival Niagara Falls. We are building a road into the area now which will eventually be an all-weather road.

[ Page 553 ]

From there we will have roads go off into the foothills and into the most beautiful scenery in all of North America. That's part of our TIDS agreement to allow some of those sites in there to be developed to help our tourist industry.

I know you have some more questions, Mr. Member, but I've tried to give you some of our thinking on this deal. We've certainly done lots of studies and we're not going to make any snap decision. But the decision, I feel, that we have to make as the government — the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia — is to establish the fact that, yes, we're going to share in the cost of the infrastructure. But we're going to do it on a formula. And we're working on that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We've done the studies as to where the roads should be. We've done all the environmental studies. They still have to come back with.... I forget whether it was phase 3 of their particular study. But that is all being looked at, and I can assure you that no decision will be made in that area until we are sure of where we're going.

MR. LEGGATT: I appreciate the fairly specific information that's been given in terms of this specific project, and I do appreciate that it is very much in a preliminary stage.

In terms of some of the things that can be done to reduce the impact on local residents of the mining industry in the north, there are some federal precedents which I'll send. There are some interesting research projects concerning trying to protect the investments of people who build around a property which contains a non-renewable resource. You have an estimated 20-year period, and you need to reduce that impact on those people. I appreciate that at this point the minister has a great many things he's probably considering in terms of that particular problem. I hope, though, that he's particularly sensitive to the serious environmental concerns that have been raised by his own officials — not your officials, but those in the Environment ministry — in terms of reclamation, the impact on wildlife and so on. I believe that we can do something up there that's consistent with the environmental problems, and I look forward to the development of some more information.

I also don't want to get into the debate on the question of what happened in the last two administrations around here, although....

MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't either, if I were you.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, I wouldn't if I were you either. The member for North Okanagan indicates to me that she's proud of their record. Well, I think maybe I'll read just a touch of it for the record. This is from Statistics Canada and the B.C. Ministry of Economic Development: "The rate of economic growth, job creation and personal income have all declined in the three years of Social Credit. Meanwhile, business bankruptcies have risen dramatically." Table 5, selected economic indicators, shows that the rate of real economic growth per year under the NDP, 1972-75, was 5.6 percent; under Social Credit it was 4.6 percent.

Well, I can't argue with Statistics Canada. We're all stuck with their figures. You can play around with their figures; you're certainly better than I was able to do, and I was back east for six and a half years. You may want to supply your own figures: I'm sure you'd love to supply your own figures. These are from Statistics Canada, and they're objective.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's have a look at the real rate of growth in real personal income per year. Under the NDP from 1972 to 1975 it was 5.4 percent. Under Social Credit it was 2.2 percent. It was twice as high under that previous administration. But again, I don’t know if there's any point in getting into what happened then and what happened in the last three years. Let's look at what's going to happen in British Columbia in the future.

The future in this particular province lies incidentally in the coking coal industry and incidentally in the mining industry. The beauty of British Columbia is that we rely on two renewable resources — two fundamental and basic resources, fishing and forestry. It's magnificent what we can do with those two resources.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Did I miss one, Jack? Waterpower? Well, I'm dealing with the two which are so key to development. For example. we don't really have the problem that Alberta has in the long run. Alberta is going to have a lot of money in the bank, but it's not going to have a lot in the ground in the long run. We're in the fortunate position of being able to husband a renewable resource. We're able to double our fishing industry with the proper kind of enhancement and the proper kind of protection for those streams. We’re just on the edge now of developing fantastic new markets for our fish processing and our fish products. For example, exporting whole fish in the future is going to slow down, and we will be selling specific quality products around the world. There's a tremendous opportunity for all of us in British Columbia to develop new tastes in Japan for different kinds of food, such as roe herring. But then there's the smoked-salmon industry, which has a fantastic future. The whole specialty industry in that food resource means that British Columbia has a fantastic future.

In terms of the wood industry, we haven't touched the surface of our capacity for exporting specially designed furniture from British Columbia with a unique British Columbia design, as the Swedes have done for so long. They're doing a marvelous job in that industry because of their background and because of some of the architectural and design skills that they have. We can do it here in British Columbia, again, using a renewable resource.

I feel very good about the future of our economy. I hope that we've ended, to some extent, the debate around this question of economic development, the tired debate that went on about what you guys did then and what us guys did now. Let's have a look at what we're going to do in the future.

Probably both parties are a little closer in their approach. There are lessons, maybe, both sides have learned about the way we go about developing our resources. There is a role for government in the industry. There's a role for more cooperatives and cooperation in the development of that industry.

[ Page 554 ]

I feel this particular portfolio is one of the most interesting that one could have. It's the kind of thing that doesn't have to be a negative portfolio in the sense that ideas are flowing from the people of British Columbia in terms of economic development, such as new fish ladders and different kinds of ways of artificially spawning our salmon. In British Columbia we continue to import much of our machinery in the woods industry. We have some of the best designers of technology for the woods industry right here in British Columbia. We should be selling to the world. We shouldn't have to import that stuff.

Here is a role for government assistance and help to develop a manufacturing industry of our wood resources. I feel the same way about the fishing industry and the technology there. We should be exporting the technology in fish to the world. We aren't doing it.

I am hopeful we are going to see aggressive help to individual entrepreneurs to develop that sort of field. I will sit down now. Perhaps the minister will want to say a few more words. I'm very new to this particular subject. I'm trying to learn.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate your remarks and the attitude you're taking toward economic development. I've got statistics here — we could shout statistics back and forth across the floor all day — to prove my point. It depends on how you look at them.

I can talk about the investment that's coming in. I've got all the statistics. The labour force in 1975 was 1,000,097; today it is 1,192,000. So in three and a half years, we've done a better job than you did.

I can tell you the unemployment figures in the last year, but I'm not going to get into that argument. I don't think you and I want to enter that debate, because I'll win.

There has been tremendous capital investment made and committed in the last three and a half years to our lumber industry. I would like to see more value added. I would like to see more paper mills, and, indeed, we are going to have more paper mills.

We in British Columbia have a tendency to take an attitude that we're hewers of wood and drawers of water, and that's not really so. Our lumber industry is probably the most sophisticated in the world.

Even so, we have to take a look at further value added in a number of areas. I'm talking about component manufacturing, mouldings, doors, furniture, that type of deal. There has been some difficulty in the past in the small remanufacturing firms getting sufficient quantities of lumber to remanufacture. We've had a discussion with the lumber industry because — let's be human — if I were a seller for one of the major lumber companies, and I could sign a contract and ship my total year's production and didn't have to bother with selling a million or half-a-million cubic foot of cedar or fir to some little manufacturer down here whose credit isn't maybe that great, I'd say: "Well, I'm sorry. You buy it somewhere else."

We basically told the lumber industry: "Look, you're going to look after those little manufacturers in British Columbia. And if you don't, we'll look after them for you." I have heard no complaints since. This came up about a year ago.

Right now, my department is doing an analysis of the remanufacturing lumber firms in British Columbia, those people who want to go out to the MacMillan Bloedels and the Crown Zellerbachs and the B.C. Forest Products and want to buy X number of thousand feet of maybe a specialty item or cedar or fir or what-have-you, and remanufacture it into furniture components or into doors or into specialized ceiling panels or wall panels.

This government is going to make sure those companies survive and that, indeed, they grow; that's the type of value add we're talking about. I get upset when one of these companies comes to me and says: "I can't buy lumber from British Columbia. I have to go south of the border." I'm not going to stand by and see that happen.

In our study we are looking at how we can assist, because that's where we really add the value to our lumber. We have a very healthy and a very sophisticated lumber industry, but certainly we can improve on the very thing you were talking about. I want to see that happen.

Since the 200-mile limit the fishing industry has taken on new dimensions. It's a new ball game and the ministry in charge of fisheries said the other day: "Okay, hold up. We're not going to just issue a licence to everybody who comes along; we're going to take a look at it." His department and my department have been working together, and we'll continue to work together.

I don't like to see these frozen salmon bought on the ocean, frozen and taken to Japan. I talked to them about it last year, and I said: "You know, that salmon should be smoked and tinned here, and the value should be added here." We're going to take a look at it, but you can't go in and make bang decisions and upset the whole apple cart. You have to work with those people, and they have to be changed gradually, and it has to be economically viable. I could stand up here and say there's never going to be another frozen salmon leave the shores of British Columbia, but I might end up with this room full of frozen salmon, too. So you have to take your time and you have to work it out, and you have to have it economically viable. You go to Japan, and what do you pay? Fifty dollars a pound for smoked salmon; it's a real delicacy. That's the type of thing we have to work towards, but as I say, Mr. Member, you just can't snap your fingers and have it happen overnight,

The fishing industry has taken on new proportions in the Salmonid Enhancement Program. We're taking a look at it, but it has to be done in the remanufacturing deal. I agree it has great potential; we want to see it happen.

You mentioned the two industries that were renewable. You forgot about agriculture. As you know, we have a great thrust in British Columbia, and it's not moving as swiftly as I would like to see it move, but we signed an agreement with Ottawa because I feel that we should irrigate a main portion of that interior Thompson Valley, up around Kamloops there. We could take off four or five crops a year by irrigation. We've got the programs to go in and help do it. We should bring up our cattle population. We can really make some strides here to make British Columbia self-sufficient in cattle. It isn't going to happen overnight. It's one of our programs, and it is happening gradually.

When we bring our cattle population up, then we can keep those cattle here and we can get our packing house industry going again, and ail of the other sophisticated food industries that go with it. But on the other hand we have food-processing plants in British Columbia that are bringing hogs from Red Deer.

So you've got to look at the whole thing in proper perspective, and you have to look at the economics of it.

[ Page 555 ]

We're working toward having British Columbia become self-sufficient in the cattle industry complete with the packing house and the whole deal, so that we don't grow the cattle here, ship them to Alberta, add $2,000 to the carcass, and buy them back here.

As I say, you can't do it overnight. You first of all have to bring your industry up from the ground. We're talking about fertilization and irrigation in areas where we can grow more fodder. Certainly the whole feed grain situation is going to take on new dimensions because of some of the decisions we made and the provinces made in Winnipeg yesterday. It's going to change the whole deal. It's also going to help our transportation system. But these are the kind of long-range programs that we are working at. A lot of governments have a lot of instant solutions. But the instant solutions are just that. Three years later you're back in worse shape than you were when you started.

Manufacturing plants are coming to British Columbia, though they're not tearing down the barricades to get here by any stretch of the imagination, but indeed there are many communities who are working and bringing in small manufacturing plants, and again, I've got the statistics to prove it. I'm not naive enough to think that we're going to be manufacturing televisions and Ford cars here in the next five years, but there are a lot of manufacturing plants that can locate here, and a lot of them are.

I think we've got a good policy going and I've made a lot of movement in the right direction with regard to high technology industry. I'm not saying that high technology industry is the end-all and be-all. It is very sexy to talk about high technology industry, but we can't put all our devotion and energy toward high technology industry and forget what really makes the economy of the province tick.

Those are just some of the ideas, Mr. Member, that I have. As I say, they're long-term. I'd love to be able to go out there and make it happen sooner — I'm impatient as well as you are — but it doesn't happen that way. British Columbia is not an island unto itself. We have to export to survive. Canada has to export to survive because we're a big country with a very low population, and when you are manufacturing something you have to look at your potential market. That is why this department has been working with the federal government and with the other western Canadian provinces to see that trade barriers are knocked down so that we can establish a better manufacturing base here in British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: There are a couple of specific questions that I would like to ask the minister about. I believe he was quoted on perhaps one or more occasions as saying that there might be some money available, or would be — and again I'm not sure — for a downtown development study for Nanaimo city. I am not sure whether this money was coming from the Ministry of Economic Development or whether it would be coming from the British Columbia Development Corporation. I believe some of the aldermen have made some inquiries of this corporation and so far have not been able to get anything specific from them as to just how much money or under what circumstances they would get it. Perhaps the minister could tell me something about that, Along those lines, I think, too, there is a question as to whether any downtown development assistance would be given for the very ambitious parking expansion proposal that is currently being proposed in the city of Nanaimo. It is described as a "25 for 25" — $25 million for 25 years — which will provide a lot of additional parking in the city and would certainly assist in any downtown development. But whether there would be any possibility of any financial assistance for that, as I say, very ambitious parking proposal, and whether the B.C. Development Corporation or the Ministry of Economic Development should be approached on this, I don't know.

On another subject which has been the story of many newspaper headlines over several years, and that is Duke Point, my question is quite specific. I talked to MacMillan Bloedel officials about this several years ago, and I think one of the things that held up Duke Point development for a time was a commitment from MacMillan Bloedel that they would actually ship through that facility. I believe that there is still some concern on the part of some people in Nanaimo that neither MacMillan Bloedel nor Doman have yet put their name to a document saying that they will ship at least a portion of their product through the facilities which are being developed there. I wonder whether the minister could comment on the specific question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich's) question. With regard to downtown development what actually happened there is we got excited about New Westminster, we went in and did a job, and really it is becoming a success story of North America. What the B.C. Development Corporation did was work with the private sector, with the civic government, with the federal government and with the provincial government to sort of coordinate the development, lay out some long-term plans and then help bring in private capital. In other words, if they needed a hotel they'd go to all the hotel chains and say: ''We’ve got this exciting thing happening here. Would you come in and build a hotel?" and so forth. It's been so successful and the Development Corporation really wasn't doing it to make money. They were doing it as their arm of development. But what is happening now is that we've done the same thing in lower Lonsdale. Langley are interested. We're starting the same thing in Kamloops and Kelowna, and we've looked at Nanaimo.

The Development Corporation are coming to me and saying: "Where are you going here? We can't go in and do all these studies; we need a little money." They've asked for a sort of core development fund which they can draw from and use in various areas. I don't mind telling you, I haven't come to grips with the problem yet, but we're going to have to make a decision if we want them to be sort of a catalyst. They're really not going to be able to make a lot of money unless there's an area where they can go in and buy some land and develop it and use the profit. But in most of these areas that they are being asked to go into they don't own any land.

I've said to them that they are getting treated fairly well by the provincial government on land; they can go in and do a few of these. I think if it continues to work and the requests continue to come in, we are going to have to give them a fund or say we'll pick up the expenses, because it is good to redevelop those quarry areas. It is good for the cities and good for the province as a whole. because a lot of those downtown cores will die unless somebody goes in and pulls the whole thing together. and the Development

[ Page 556 ]

Corporation is the catalyst that can pull the whole thing together.

With regard to your parking in downtown Nanaimo, I've never heard of it before. I would suggest that you would probably have to go to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

With regard to the Duke Point development, there were certain stipulations laid on us by the federal Treasury Board, and we were sort of left with the deal. We've said that Duke Point is going to go ahead, period. I can't say too much about the detailed discussions that are presently going on, but we're very close to meeting the federal Treasury Board requirements. These are very tight negotiations and they are proceeding very well. We've had to bring that thing along and it looks to me like we'll have it finalized in the very, very near future. I don't have a problem thinking that we are not going to be able to reach an agreement.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to touch on a few problems in getting our economy going — in a non-partisan way, because I am sure that both sides of the House are interested in getting our economy going. But as I see it, there are impediments to moving major sections of our economy ahead, artificial impediments both in tariffs and freight rate structures that are placed on us, I believe, by Ottawa.

I would like to talk about that a little, and then have the minister maybe fill us in as to any negotiations that we are having in Ottawa, especially now that we have a new government down there that seems to have as its power base more of western Canada than previous governments. This might be a good sign for us in the west because, in order to satisfy the people who elected the new federal government, there is a possibility that they may have to satisfy westerners for once, as opposed to the historical pattern of having federal governments always fulfil the desires of the voters in central Canada. So maybe there is some hope. I would like to have the minister tell us what is going on between the two governments. Is there new hope for us in the west now that we have a new government in Ottawa?

One of the basic things I would like to take up from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is the way we handle our resources in British Columbia. One of the things we have been doing over the years is looking for investment, both internal and from outside our province, to create new wealth and new jobs in British Columbia. We always end up, if we get investment at all, getting investment that does one thing, basically; it further widens the extraction of our natural resources, be it in forestry, mining or fishing. We always look for money that will extract more, and ship it out without the processing that I think could be done had we not these artificial impediments placed on us by Ottawa.

For instance, if you are going to go into secondary manufacturing or tertiary manufacturing, you have to have a fair-sized market in order to do it. Obviously if you are looking at 2.5 million people, you're usually looking at something that is uneconomic when you get into manufacturing. You need a larger market; you need central Canada. And we find out that we can't have central Canada, because if you start dealing in shipping a finished product to central Canada, you find that the freight rate is a heck of a lot different than if you are shipping an unfinished product. It's lower to ship an unfinished product than a finished product.

And you can obviously see that you are shipping jobs down to Ontario as you apply that freight rate.

So you say: "Well, I guess central Canada's out to get us. We cannot establish a secondary manufacturing industry because this artificial impediment, the freight rate structure, prevents us supplying the major populace of Canada." So you say: "What about the United States? It seems to be our natural trading partner anyway, looking at the north-south routings. Why don't we sell to California? Why don't we sell to Oregon? Why don't we sell to Washington?" Guess what? You get to the border and you find out that the federal government puts on a nice little export tariff so it can further save all new jobs in the manufacturing industry for central Canada.

Even with the best intentions in trying to create jobs in western Canada and in British Columbia, any government or the private sector.... We're a little better off than some of the others because we do have the tidewater economics that help us to a certain degree in offshore markets. But we do need an American market if we're going to go into manufacturing to any great degree. As far as I can see, it is impossible to do as long as we have a federal government that is catering to the votes in central Canada. It is no more than that; it's strictly politics. And in my opinion, it's making Canada very uneconomic when trying to go out into the world market and compete.

Another little thing that we have going — not little, it's large — is that we are shipping not only our raw materials down there to be manufactured but we are also shipping energy down there for them to process, which has to be uneconomic. The most obvious thing to do is to do your manufacturing where your source of energy and your source of raw materials are. That seems to make sense. But we cannot do it because of these artificial impediments placed on us by Ottawa. And we've been treated like that ever since Confederation, in one way or another.

As I said at the beginning, it's a non-partisan argument that I am putting forward. I can't see any way we can get out of it. It leaves us in the position that every time we want new investment or we get new investment, what we have to do is take our natural resources at a faster and faster rate and ship them out for a low return of wealth by comparison to having a manufacturing industry that would use that.

I think even in the forest industry we're losing out because what we're compelled to do is to use up our forest industry raw material in a quicker way than we would have to. We can't create the amount of wealth by using a small part of our forestry. We could create a lot more wealth and use our forestry at a much slower rate if we were only allowed to compete in the world market through manufacturing of those forest products. The same in mining; the same in fishing.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us in a quandary. What we do as two political parties here in British Columbia is blame each other or try to take the credit. If you're in government, you say: "Well, look, we've got a nice little thing going here now. It's because of our policies." So says the minister of either party. Or if it's not going so well, you have the opposition on the other side of the House saying: "It's because of your policies or lack of them that we're not doing so well." In many instances, I think we should be joining up with one another and attacking one of the real problems — the government in Ottawa for the last 110 years that has catered to the votes in central Canada. I don't know

[ Page 557 ]

of a polite word to use in describing the situation, but we've been had. We've been shafted for over 100 years by Ottawa. That's what we've been having happen to us for over 100 years.

I think we have a responsibility on both sides of the House to go out and educate all of our people in western Canada and in British Columbia to what is happening to us and why. So that's one of the things that I would like the minister to deal with today.

Also, there are other aspects. If you start at manufacturing, private industry itself seems to have some motivation in not wanting it to happen also. That's the private manufacturing industry in central Canada.

Consequently they don't have warehouses out here. In fact, I'm almost convinced that when you order from the east, they don't even start to manufacture it till they get the order. That seems to be the way it happens. I think that's true.

If you're a small business in western Canada with that economy of scale that you can't hope to match, if you order 100 of something, are they going to worry about you or are they going to worry about General Electric who just ordered five boxcars full of the same thing? So you go to the end of the list, even if they had a warehousing industry in central Canada, which I'm beginning to doubt.

But I think one of the ways that we could help small business.... When I say small business, I don't mean the corner store. I'm talking about a much larger operation than that, especially in the manufacturing area. Maybe government could become involved in warehousing in British Columbia or at least looking into it and finding out why these major manufacturers will not put warehousing facilities in out here. Not only does it take a long time to get it, which costs you money, but you may never get it because, as I said, they probably start manufacturing the nut and bolt when you order them.

My experience with eastern manufacturers is that they don't really have any inclination at all to service western manufacturers. I think the reason is quite simple. They don't want any manufacturing out here and they throw everything in the way possible to stop it.

The other area that I would like the minister to comment on, speaking about small business, is the Canadian banking system, which seems to never want to loan money on a risk. You can go to an American bank and you can borrow money on an idea or on business experience but you can't go to a Canadian bank and borrow any risk capital. You really do have to prove to them that you don't need it before you can get it.

That's why I think that it's very, very important that there be funds available through government, if you can’t get it any other place, for small business to go to, not to borrow money necessarily for capital expansion. That's one of the criticisms I do have about the British Columbia government, both under us and under the Social Credit. You can go to the bank and if you can't get it there you can go to government to borrow money for capital expenditures. It's a little harder to borrow money for inventory. It's almost impossible to borrow money for inventory. It's always impossible to borrow money for operating, You can't go and borrow operating capital. That is impossible, unless, of course, you can prove you don't need it. Those are some areas I'd like the minister to comment on. I see it as the biggest impediment to any real growth in our economy in British Columbia.

As long as those artificial impediments are put there by Ottawa. as far as I'm concerned, we're dead in the water. We're going to use up all our natural resources as quickly as we can to create some needed wealth so we can employ new people who are coming into the market. We're going to end up like the Maritimes. That's what happened to them. When you hear Maritimers speak about central Canada, it's the same story. They're having the same problems with central Canada that we are having. But they've been there longer. They've used up most of their natural resources by shipping them out raw, and they have not been able to compete with the political impediments to the market. Now they are in real bad shape. I can see us ending up the same way unless we can break that and get the industry that would be economic for us.

I'm not suggesting that we say to Ontario: "Game's over boys. We're going to take all your jobs, and we're not going to ship you any raw materials." But we do need an even break. I think there are industries that could be phased in in western Canada if we could get rid of those freight rate structures and export tariffs. I don't know what we're going to do other than what we've been doing for a hundred years. We've been extracting our raw resources, shipping them out unprocessed and therefore not creating the full amount of wealth and number of jobs. If the minister has considered all of these problems. and I'm sure he has, I'd like to know what the current state of negotiations with Ottawa is. Does he think that we're going to have the same problem with the Clark government that we had with the Trudeau government and every other government before, or is there some glimmer of hope?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the very philosophical discussion from the member for Prince Rupert with regard to tariffs, this government and this ministry have recognized that problem. This ministry and this government has indeed acted. As you know, trade and tariff talks, called the Tokyo rounds, have been going on in Geneva for X number of years. This is the second round in talks to reduce trade tariffs. Earlier on, we got together with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and we adopted a position. We were pretty adamant about this. As a matter of fact, I had the honour of presenting that position paper in October about two years ago. We came out and said: "Look, you know, we're getting sick and tired of subsidizing the toothpaste makers in Ontario." We were pretty strong. We also said to the federal government: "Look, you're going over there and you've got a team over there negotiating. Now we bloody well want to know what you're talking about and how they're coming." As a result, they've removed tariffs on about 80 percent of the products going from Canada into the United States. Now this is going to be over the next ten years. As I say. you're not going to snap your fingers, because don't forget that as soon as you reduce those trade barriers going in, you're also reducing the trade barriers coming back in, and we have to have an adjustment period. I feel that British Columbia indeed can compete and indeed western Canada can compete.

Your discussions with regard to freight rates are very appropriate because, as you know, I was in Winnipeg yesterday and we were discussing what I consider to be the key issue in straightening out freight rates — eastern

[ Page 558 ]

Canada versus western Canada. That is the Crow rate. As you know, the railways have to move that grain by statute. The railways may not admit this, but we know what's happened. They haven't equipped the system. They will, in the line rehabilitation program with the federal government shoving $700 million in there over the next ten years. But that's why there's a shortage of boxcars; let's face it. I don't want to get into being accused of condemning the railway, but if you were told you had to move a product at a certain price with no flexibility to upgrade your system, what are you going to do? My attitude is that our lumber industry and our coking coal industry are paying.

I'm not against the prairie farmer, because I've got a lot of them up in my area. But we agreed yesterday with the Hall commission that somebody's got to pick up that tab. The only difference of agreement we had is that Saskatchewan said that the subsidy should be paid directly to the railway; British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba said it should be paid directly to the producer because that's usually the way it's been done, and then monitor the railway, because you have the Canadian Transport Commission, which, by the way, we want western representation on, and they can control the rates.

In other words, the railway companies aren't going to be able to just all of a sudden send the price of moving a bushel of grain out of all proportion. But when that happens, then we can go to the railway in western Canada, particularly British Columbia. We can say: "Now look, you're getting compensated for the movement of grain, and there is no excuse that it's costing us X-number of more dollars to move a piece of manufactured goods back to Ontario now. In other words, the system is now going to float free. You're getting compensated for what you move: we want you to be as competitive in moving things from British Columbia to Ontario as you are in, moving Ontario goods out here." Now that isn't happening overnight.

I get frustrated. We started off in WEOC in 1973 to argue about this. Just yesterday the four ministers from four provinces sat down to bring the Crow rate up and start talking about it and reaching an agreement. We had a situation where things weren't moving along too fast. I said: "Look, this has been going on for 20 years." We communicate with Ottawa but we don't agree on how it should be done, but we agree it should be done.

Those are some of the negotiations we're starting with the new government in Ottawa. With regard to warehousing, as you know, through the Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement we will assist and finance in building warehouse space, but we've got to have a customer out there to use it. I don't think the government wants to put up warehouses, but we do have the funds available and through our industrial land, through the B.C. Development Corporation, that program is there, if somebody wants to go back east to one of these manufacturers and say: "Look, we're established out here, and we've got all the mechanisms to do it. All we need is an entrepreneur to do it. Do you want the job?"

With regard to the steel industry, they have established steel centres here, and they are now warehousing, and you know what we went through on that. So we are making some progress — albeit slow. I'm impatient too, but you have to grind away. The only thing we can do is fight as hard as we can to make as much progress as we can, and I think we're making progress.

MR. LEA: Obviously the problem is a political one; it's the problem with federal government looking where the population centres are and where the votes are coming from. I can't disagree in many areas with the proposals that the provincial government has been taking to Ottawa surrounding Confederation and a new makeup. My experience has taught me, and historically I think it's true, that power is never given up; it's always taken away. I'm not too sure that we'll have any success by being reasonable, but I guess that has to be the first approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's being reasonable?

MR. LEA: You're being reasonable in your approach with them, but probably if we're ever going to be successful, we're going to have to be a little bit more than reasonable. If Confederation isn't working, then there's no point in having Confederation. So the first object should be to make Confederation work, and if it won't then we have to take a serious look at what's happening to us in western Canada. We all want to make it work, but we're not going to make it work by going down to Ottawa — as we all have as governments and as cabinets over the past years — and saying: "Look…." You know, my experience with the federal government is this — and I hope we have a new one but I suspect not — because I suspect that they're going to be looking at the same voter population blocks, and coming to the same decisions. So how do we change the Confederation by shifting the political power cross the country when the government that is in power in Ottawa has to cater at all times to that population? I don't know how we're going to do that in any sensible way that's going to be politically acceptable to any party that's in power in Ottawa.

I see these as almost insurmountable problems. The obvious way we're going to get what we want, economically, is by taking political action. It's the only way we're going to get it, and the only way we're going to get political action is to make every westerner aware of what's been happening to us over the years, not just people in the business community who've had to deal with it, who've tried to start a manufacturing firm and have found that everything fits, with all the economic pieces in place, until they run into a tariff at the border or into the freight rate structure going east.

A lot of people who have gone into manufacturing, and who have got out of manufacturing, understand the lack of service you get from the eastern manufacturers who are going to supply you if you're going to be manufacturing out here. So it has to be political action, and it seems to me that the government, and we in the opposition, should be embarking on a program to make people fully aware of what is going on. We keep it to ourselves too much because we're afraid to speak out and be labelled "bad Canadians." There's always that fear, if we speak out, and say: "Look, we want some more things for the west. Ontario may not be to blame, but they're sure not lessening up on their pressure on Ottawa to make sure that things remain the same." It's interesting to hear Bill Davis say: "Oh, things aren't that bad." I guess they aren't for Bill Davis in Ontario.

Interjection.

[ Page 559 ]

MR. LEA: That's right. We have to start being more vocal, and take a gamble that there are some people who might look at us aghast, and say: "Are you people good Canadians?" I believe the only way you can be a good Canadian is by making Confederation work, and work properly, so that we're ' not always being traded off against the needs of those larger population areas. So I think we all have an obligation to start speaking out about the kind of deals that are made for the protection of Ontario and certain industries in Quebec, like the textile industry. I ran into a protection measure for a textile industry in Quebec that didn't exist. It was the goofiest thing I ever ran into. I was being penalized to protect an industry in Quebec that didn't exist, because there just happened to be a bureaucratic rule on the books in regard to import costs.

So I think that it is not enough for the Minister of Economic Development and the minister responsible for confederation matters, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), to take these things down and distribute them among themselves. We have to actually make the people of British Columbia understand that.... You know, as far as I'm concerned, there was every reason in the world to throw the Trudeau government out of office. But I think that, in many cases, people probably voted to throw them out for the wrong reason. I think only time will tell where the Clark government's going. But I strongly suspect that the route that they take won't be very much different than that of the Trudeau government in these areas. The only reason they're going to change is that they know everyone in the west fully understands what they're doing. Make it public and make everybody understand.

The minister talked about somebody being on the Canadian Transport Commission. I'd go one step further and say that there should be a western Canadian transportation authority, made up of all four western provinces, with a representative on it from Ottawa. We should decide what rail lines we're going to abandon and which ones we aren't going to abandon, because those railway systems or transportation systems are obviously the key to economic development. As long as they're in the hands of easterners who are protecting themselves, I can't see where we're going to make much progress there either. So I think that more than have a representative on the CTC, there should be a western Canadian transportation authority, and I think we should allow an Ottawa person on it, but not necessarily.

Seriously, there should be representation from the national government, but I would like to know whether the government is pushing for that, as opposed to just a representative. I think that's the way we have to go if we're going to solve the problem.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member, I'm not in charge of negotiating Confederation but I have stated our view on it. I do feel that there is going to be a decision. I'm not going to prejudge the new government until we give them a chance. We give them a chance and we try and work with them.

MR. LEA: Let's put the pressure on them right now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We've got some pressure on right now and I'll tell you, just as soon as you let me out of here and give me the opportunity, I'll put a little bit more pressure on them.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to ask the minister a bit of a specific question on a small-business training program. I don't know whether I'm missing his estimate, but it looks like there's nothing in the estimates for small-business training this year. The estimate for last year was $1 million and I wondered if the minister could tell us how much of that $1 million was spent in the small-business training program.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can answer the first part of your question. That particular program went to Small Business. If you look under Tourism and Small Business, we'll identify it there.

As for exactly how much of that was spent on that program, as you know. that program was basically implemented in cooperation with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. I haven't got the exact figure but I'll have it for you momentarily.

MR. LEGGATT: Just so I can give the minister a bit more background on the reasons for those questions, I happen to think it's very vital and important that government involve itself in special training programs in terms of small business. Now I agree it can be in cooperation with other groups, but there's a very special problem we have in this province. Our small merchants and our small entrepreneurs are competing now with American franchises. Those American franchises are market-tested in New York and Los Angeles. They're coming up with fantastically careful accounting procedures. I don't like to use one organization but it happens to be so efficient; McDonald's know how many toothpicks there are in their hamburger stands, and that's why they are a very successful operation.

We have to have the same capacity in terms of our small businessmen. To be able to compete, they have got to have that special training. They have a hamburger college in the United States. Everybody used to laugh at a hamburger college. It really resulted in that particular organization being remarkably successful all over North America because of that kind of special training.

If you want to look at the original reason for the success of agriculture in North America, it had a lot to do with the land-grant agricultural colleges in the United States. That's one of the reasons agriculture in North America has been successful all around the world. The backup training is so keen. I'd like us to have a look at the way we go about training our small business people. I think there has to be more exposure to what the competition is doing in the United States, such as the new franchise ideas. After all, if a franchise is making it in Los Angeles. you know it's going to make it in British Columbia. There may have been five others who failed with a different idea, so the one that worked is going to be a real money winner. Our people have got to be exposed to that kind of sharp, good accounting and good management. I think it's a serious problem. I'm concerned that we aren't allocating enough money in the minister's budget. Maybe the minister will have a look at the size of those business training programs. I hope we can get a little more detail on what the ministry is doing in that area. At all levels that particular expenditure should be

[ Page 560 ]

increased, as long as it's tested, looked at and is efficiently done.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. That's why we started this program last year. In last year's budget it was a million dollars. We had to look at it in two ways. First of all, you can have training programs from here and back, but if you can't get the business community to attend the training program and to understand what is available, there's no sense in having a program. Vancouver community college and some of the other colleges are starting to take a look at this. We went out there and said: "Hey, you're not training the small businessman. There's no entrepreneurship in your training." Sure, you can get a degree in accounting or law or merchandising or how to fix store windows, but there is no educational program available for the small businessman. I recognize what you're saying. I was a franchise dealer. I was trained and trained and retrained. As a matter of fact, I spent half my time taking training courses. I didn't have any time to stay home and make any money; that's why I'm here today. I understand what you're talking about. You just can't snap your fingers and come up with a program.

We also said, first of all, that we've got to get the business community to cooperate if we're going to have these training programs. Maybe it's not the same situation on the lower mainland as in Cranbrook or.... So we said okay. We made a deal with the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. Another problem we were having was educating the small businessman as to what programs we had available. We had a proliferation of programs. I was running down to Ottawa — new day, new program. Ottawa was coming out with new programs for the small businessman. The small businessman was being inundated with new programs he didn't know how to apply for. We made the deal to set up the mechanism. It's been working well. It's the small business community working with the small business community distributing information. We signed a contract with the chamber of commerce to set up those offices.

I did a study to set up offices of this ministry in five major cities in British Columbia. It was going to cost $880,000, and I would still have only five little offices. So we made, I think, a very innovative deal with the Chamber of Commerce. We'll have further deliberations about this after dinner, because it is very exciting. I recognize the potential, and we've got to go that way. That's why I started that program last year.

Criticize me for not doing as much as I should have done. Criticize me for not getting more money but, you know, that's what I want to do. My heart's in the right place, even though, you know....

Now, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report great resolutions and ask leave to sit again at a later date.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the year ended December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the annual report as required under the Transit Services Act, for the year ended December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.