[ Page 561 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development and Small Business estimates.

On vote 56.

Mr. Cocke –– 561

Mr. Davis –– 561

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 563

Ms. Brown –– 561

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 563

Mr. Brummet –– 567

Mr. Leggatt 567

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Cocke –– 568

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 569

Mr. Barber –– 570

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 571

Mr. King –– 575

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 576

Mr. Barber –– 576

Mr. Hanson –– 577

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 578

Ms. Sanford –– 578

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 578

On vote 57.

Ms. Brown –– 578

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 578

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has done a great service for the province from time to time, usually when he's out of the province — in Japan, trying to foster trade, and the other places where he's been. In the course of his moving around, I wonder whether he really realizes what we have to deal with here. It strikes me that over 75 percent of the jobs that have been created in B.C. during the last 15 years are jobs in the service industry. I guess that's mainly because of our attractive surroundings. We're a good place for tourism and a good place for retirement. But the high-paying jobs in the service industry are outside the province. B.C. has 11 percent of Canada's employment but only 7 percent of all private management jobs. Beyond that, we have only 4 percent of financial management jobs. B.C.'s research and development employment is less than one-quarter of the normal level. Really and truly, there has been no effort, or very little discernible effort, from this minister who puts out statistics and then gives speeches that make one wonder whether he even reads his own statistics. As far as providing any kind of confidence and any kind of input that would mitigate some of the real problems in our province, that minister has been a disaster.

I believe that if we really put our minds to it in B.C. and try to get a handle on our own economy rather than leaving everything to others to make all the decisions, we could very well look forward to something more here than being a colony of Canada. We needn't be; we're a very rich province. This attitude of "the east knows best" has been enhanced, and their position in the west has been enhanced by governments such as we have here: governments that are timid, governments that are afraid to play any part in the economy. They set up an economic development ministry which really has no participation in the development of the economy. It's a government so timid that they'd sell off the very fine industries that were picked up at bargain prices by the previous government.

I suggest that we should hear tonight some real plans for British Columbia's development, not the waving of arms, the flying fish and the grand statements about: "Here we're selling this and we're selling that."

As I said before dinner, the thing that really has saved the economy has been the bonanza in the forest industry. That wasn't enhanced in any way by this government. It was enhanced by the differential in the dollar; that 15 percent really helps. Even there we are in a serious situation right now. Housing starts are down in the United States and apparently will continue to go down. They are on the edge of a recession, so we are going to have to be just a little bit innovative here in B.C. I'm always delighted to see us interested and involved in secondary industry, service industry, but there's very little coming out if it.

Under education we're going to hear all the great plans from the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He's whispering now to the Minister of Economic Development. Get up and tell him we're going to create another MIT out of UBC. So far, that's fanfare, really what the Socreds can do best — a PR job. But when it comes to anything tangible, anything real, what we get from the Socreds are losing propositions. The only action we've seen is in the backbench. They jump up and down at the call of the House Leader, voting, often times, against their better judgment. That's their action. They don't even get up and speak in defence of this minister, and I don't blame them. I wouldn't speak in defence of him either if I was a government supporter. But does he understand the real reason for B.C. being in the bind it's in?

I was in the insurance business at one time

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: ICBC bought me out. I paid that eternal price, making a move into this business. I spent a great deal of that time moving from here to the east. For ten years I was provincial manager for a very large life insurance company, and during that period I got to know better, and with greater depth of understanding, exactly why we are in trouble. One of the things that drove me into politics was the fact that there was nobody tending the shop in this province, and down east they know it. They keep all the controls down east; there's no question about that. Tell me one major financial institution that has its headquarters in this province. The Bank of British Columbia....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: BCRIC isn't a financial institution, Mr. High School Teacher. Go back to the classroom and get an E.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes. It's got a lot of dough. They wonder what they're going to do with it all. But, Mr. Chairman, we have shown no insight at the government level here during Socred regimes in terms of how we get a handle on creating a very vibrant B.C. economy. We have a lot of the wherewithal to see to it that we do become part of management. But so far we've failed. Imagine: 4 percent of financial management jobs, while we have 11 percent of such jobs in the country: 7 percent of our other management jobs in this province, while we have 11 percent of the total workforce in the country. And in Manitoba, now that Mr. Disaster, another Socred in Conservative garments.... Wait till you see what happens to that province. The Red River will gobble it up; there'll be nothing left by the time those Socred Conservatives get through with it.

MRS. JORDAN: Just like Saskatchewan.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Saskatchewan, the finest gem. Now why doesn't this minister take notice of Saskatchewan, the

[ Page 562 ]

most deprived, the poorest province in Canada until the CCF took over in 1944, and now, Mr. Chairman, the province with the best outlook, the province that's really got a handle on its own economy, and the lowest unemployment in the whole country, including Alberta. Yes, I'll take Saskatchewan any day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go! Go!

MR. COCKE: "Go!" they say. The only reason I don't go is to save this province from you bunch of dimwits.

Mr. Chairman, let the minister stand up and tell us something new, tell us that he's got something in the offing that can give us some confidence that this government knows where it's going in terms of economic development.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but rise after the member for New Westminster has spoken and say that I, for one, unreservedly support the Minister of Economic Development. I think the basic policy approach to economic development followed by this government is the right one.

MR. LEA: What is it?

MR. DAVIS: It's spelled out in the budget address of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). On page 13 we find that the economic strategy concerning the growth and development of British has

"had to recognize two overriding characteristics of our economy: a traditional dependence on primary resource industries; and a heavy dependence on exports, particularly to foreign markets.

"British Columbians will continue to prosper, but we must begin now to plan for a new phase of development. Our economic base must be diversified and barriers to income growth must be removed. Natural resources continue to be our strength as our employment base is extended into new activities such as..."

and they are enumerated on page 14.

"...further processing, resource-related manufacturing, the service sector and, finally, high technology activities related to our resource base."

I have one question I want to put to the Minister of Economic Development. I wonder if his ministry would consider a study of the economic advantages of further processing coal in this province. One of the most obvious ways to do this is to use the coal wastes from our metallurgical coal mining operations, convert those wastes to electricity and, as long as we have an electricity surplus in this province, export the electricity but, of course, always reserving what is both the requirement provincially and the requirement under the National Energy Board Act nationally, thereby reserving the position that if an electricity requirement in the province is not served, that output be then diverted to British Columbia consumers.

I listened with interest to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talking about basic policy. I think he quite rightly stressed our renewable resources. We should certainly favour the development of renewable resources as long as we ensure they are, in fact, renewable through sustained-yield operations, whether that applies to fisheries, forestry or agriculture. We must make sure that the resource, whether wild or man-made, is there for the long-term future and that, indeed, it is an expanding resource, if at all possible.

We have other resources which are not renewable in the technical sense. Minerals, generally speaking, are non-renewable. We are engaged in the mining industry, and many people are employed in mining in this province. We should process more of those resources before they are exported, and certainly all our own requirements.

The most abundant mineral in this province, which has been economic, on and off, is coal. Yet we use practically no coal in British Columbia. We export it for steel-making, principally in Japan. We use, instead, the more depletable, more exhaustible, lower-cost fuels like oil and natural gas. But sooner or later we are going to have to utilize coal internally, and the first way we will utilize it, certainly in any quantity, is in the form of electricity. If we can take refuse coal that is mined today and simply thrown aside at the mine sites to make electricity, we'll be upgrading a resource which has virtually no value today; we'll be increasing its value a hundred- or a thousandfold; processing — in other words, finding jobs and providing considerable employment — to the advantage of the provincial economy.

I assume the Minister of Economic Development is primarily concerned with jobs — hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in the industries of this kind. Where a resource is now wasting, certainly a non-renewable resource, where it can be economically converted in this province into a saleable commodity like electricity, we should engage in that activity.

I'm not convinced that all the environmental aspects of thermal power generation in the Crowsnest Pass area, all the environmental protection needed, can be provided. But the evidence to date is that if we are going to process any coal anywhere in this province to make electricity — that is the lowest-sulphur-containing, the lowest-impurity-containing coal anywhere in the province — if we can't generate electricity there from that coal we're not likely to be generating electricity in any quantity anywhere else in this province for a long time to come.

I suggest this will be a relatively clean industry. Certainly as far as solid wastes are concerned, it will clean up a mess. It will help relieve a water pollution problem. The evidence I have seen suggests that if there is an air pollution problem, a question of inversion in those narrow valleys, it's a matter of 2 percent or 3 percent or 4 percent of the time, and no more. It is certainly possible to burn natural gas or some other fuel in a power plant there in order to overcome that problem.

In other words, there is an industry possible in that area: a resource-processing industry; an industry which can upgrade a resource; an industry which can provide several hundred jobs for 30 or 40 years, just based on the refuse from the present coal mining operations; a stable industry; an industry which can support a stable community; an industry of the kind which I believe all members of this House could support. It makes a lot of sense. It's certainly cleaner than the coal mining and coal washing operations there by a long shot. It's one of the cleanest industries possible, and if the new pollution standards which are being developed in the Environment ministry hold, then it will probably be the cleanest coal-fired plant anywhere on this continent, if not in the world.

So many of the aspects of a useful coal-fired plant anywhere on this continent, if not in the world, and so many

[ Page 563 ]

of the aspects of a useful job-producing industry are available there, and it's one which I would hope that the Ministry of Economic Development would take a careful look at to see whether it is economically viable.

I think that it makes a lot of sense from an international trade point of view. Not only does it upgrade a resource that is otherwise going to waste, but it involves an export into an adjoining area of the United States where the total power output is 40 or 50 times the maximum output from such a plant. In other words, this plant would be exporting 3 or 4 percent of the total, power consumption in the U.S. Pacific Northwest states which are integrated in a power grid. It is not a tremendous amount of energy, and it certainly would not be alienated forever. It's on the scale of a few months' low growth in the adjoining states of the United States. I personally think it would be wise, at least from an international trade point of view, when we've cut off our Canadian oil exports to the U.S. Pacific Northwest, where within ten years we'll be terminating all our natural gas exports, where, if I were to follow the admonition of a minister of the NDP government, when the Libby Dam was launched, we were threatening to divert the upper Kootenay into the upper Columbia as well and cut off some of their water. I think it would be useful if we were to export a relatively small amount of electricity into the U.S. Pacific Northwest. In my view, it's good business for British Columbia. It certainly would be part of a reasonable, sound economic trading relationship with that area, and it certainly would be a gesture at least of good neighbourliness to a part of the continent which at times has supplied us with energy when we've needed it. I think it is reasonable in this modern day and age to trade in electricity, as all of the European countries do, as many of the Canadian provinces have done — to their profit — with adjoining areas of the United States.

The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) says: "Let's be a little bit innovative." It's not really innovative in most Canadian provinces — certainly not around the world — to trade in electricity; but it seems to be innovative in this province to talk forthrightly about trade in a commodity which, history has proved, can be exported and repatriated. And if we are able to upgrade a resource like waste coal in the Kootenays in the process, so much the better. It is a tangible possibility. It may be economically viable; I hope it's environmentally sound; but I would recommend the project to the Economic Development ministry for careful study.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's remarks. Fording and Kaiser have already commissioned the B.C. Research Council to do a study on the very thing that the member has suggested. That research is presently going on, and if the study says that it is economically feasible, which it probably will.... Of course, as you know, we want to look at it in terms not only of the southeast and the existing coal stock pile, but also of other future mines that could be developed.

In that regard, as you know, our Science Council has been set up under the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. We now are setting up an office of coal research where we can analyse the properties of coal. I don't think we should re-invent the wheel, but we certainly have to analyse the properties of our British Columbia coal, because, as you know, coals are the same as heavy oils: they have different properties and you need different refineries. As for oil processing, you need different methods of burning and different methods of pollution control for the various properties in the coal.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister would tell me where the women's economic rights branch comes under this. I haven't been able to find it in his estimates at all, and I know it must be here somewhere. Am I permitted to talk about it even though it's not in the estimates? Or doesn't it exist anymore?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's not in the estimates, Madam Member, it would not be appropriate to discuss it.

MS. BROWN: Well, maybe then what I should do is ask the minister whether he has eliminated the branch and, if not, whether it has just changed its name. Does it exist in another form, in another life, in another place? What has happened to the women's economics rights branch, which was instituted by the previous administration? Is this an indication of the kind of commitment which this particular ministry has towards women and the whole process of economic development in the province? Would the minister be willing to respond to that question now, Mr. Chairman — or should I proceed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot offer advice. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder what has happened to the women's economic rights branch. Does it still exist?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This ministry, as you know, is doing a study of equal opportunities in government.

MS. BROWN: I didn't know that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We've started a study, and we're doing that. But with regard to your comments, Madam Member, I've had some meetings with women's groups around the province, and I've said to them: "Come to me with a meaningful program." You know, just putting something in the budget is not going to change anything: you've got to have a meaningful program, and I think it's got to be an educational process. We're doing a study with regard to employment and equal opportunities within the government service, and it will be available probably about the end of August.

MS. BROWN: The function of the women’s economic rights branch was not to do a study within the government about equal opportunities for women. Its function was to integrate women into the planning of the department in terms of economic development around the province. That’s the reason why it was instituted in the first place, and that was its function. It wasn't a matter of going around to women's groups and saying: "Come to me with your plans." Its function was to see that when economic policy was being developed for the province, the perspective of women was taken into account and their needs were integrated into the planning.

[ Page 564 ]

Is this no longer a matter of import to the government? This is all I'm trying to find out. I'm not interested in the minister's statement about equal opportunity in the civil service; that's not its function. That's not the minister's responsibility; that's the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I wouldn't ask him to do the Provincial Secretary's job. He's doing a lousy job in his own department. Why would anyone ask him to do someone else's job? But in terms of economic development for the province, who is looking after and interpreting the perception and the needs of women in this province? Who is integrating that into the economic development? That's the question I'm asking the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The full mandate of the women's economic branch is now included in the social economic branch of the economic analysis and research bureau in the department performing, basically, the same function.

MS. BROWN: Maybe the minister will elaborate and explain to us just what this social economic integration is all about, because there's nothing here that shows up in that regard. There was a task force study. Should I wait while you're briefed by the deputy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What we're looking at here in this particular branch is the total impact on people, not necessarily just females or children. We're looking at the total impact of any economic development on the total population. The women's economic branch is included in this. For instance, when we did the studies on the northeast coal, we did a study to see how the various elements of society are going to have as many rights as anybody else, and how it's going to impact on a community. Wherever we look, we look at the total impact.

MS. BROWN: I'm really pleased to hear that it's looking at the total impact on people, because I was under the impression that we were people too. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman.... Have you recognized me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm wearing a medallion which is commemorating the fact that 50 years ago in October the government of Canada designated that women were people too. That's the reason why I'm asking the minister to give me some indication of the kind of research that's being done, and the ways in which the female people of this province are being integrated into the economic planning of the province.

A year ago a task force on single industries in the north brought down a number of recommendations — the northern British Columbia women's task force — and I know it was paid for by the federal government, and the provincial government did not make any sort of financial contribution to it, but maybe at that time you weren't studying people; you were just looking at other things. But a number of recommendations were brought down, and I'm interested to find out what has been done in terms of implementing some of these recommendations which were brought down by this northern British Columbia women's task force report on single-industry resource communities.

Also at the time when there was a women's economics branch a study was done on the appropriate child-care scheme for a new town based on a northeast coal development. At that time some recommendations were made in terms of introducing day-care services in the proposed new town with reference to the northeast region. There were recommendations made about funding, discussions about the user fees, the costs, et cetera. I would be interested in what has happened to that recommendation now that the minister has seen fit to wipe out that particular branch and integrate it under something known as "social policy."

In addition, there is the pipeline project, which I guess should have been discussed under the Ministry of Energy, but I didn't discuss it then because I knew it had to deal with the economic development issue.

I want to know in what respect the provincial government is again integrating the needs of women into this particular development. Again, the research on this is being funded by the federal government. I am aware that the provincial government is not putting any funding into this. The federal government has been funding the women's research centre to do some studies in cooperation with two women's communities in the north. They have been bringing down some recommendations, and they have been voicing some concerns.

Mr. Chairman, one of the major concerns is the whole business of child care facilities, the same concern which was touched on in this report by the women's economic rights branch before it became a social division that dealt with people rather than with the specific and particular needs of women living in this area.

They talked about the boom-and-bust situation which the member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned earlier. It is a major concern because a community takes the attitude that the development of the workforce is going to be temporary, lasting only for a short period of time. They have a lot of people move into the area, but they are not going to settle there permanently. They are going to be moving out afterwards, so the community is discussing the possibility of not investing in additional human resource facilities, such as child care facilities.

Has the Ministry of Economic Development taken into account the impact of these people moving into the community? A number of them have wives and small children. What is this going to do to the already strained resources in these particular areas?

Has the Ministry of Economic Development, through its section on social development, taken into account what is going to happen to the other services? One of the things that the women talked about was something as simple as the experience of shopping. Again, small businesses take the attitude that the influx of people is going to be temporary. They have not been expanding to deal with the additional workforce that is coming in, and the women are talking about having to line up even to do something as basic and as simple as their grocery shopping.

Has the Ministry of Economic Development taken this into account? Has the whole issue of the socio-economic impact of the development of the pipeline project and the whole business of its temporary nature been taken into account? Who is giving the perception and who is talking about their specific needs? Society has decided that women are in the home and their specific needs have centred around

[ Page 565 ]

child care, health care and mental health. All of these things were dealt with in the task force report, which were dealt with in this report, and came out of the department back in the olden days when they had an economic development thing. These things came out of the federal research done by the Fort Nelson Women's Centre and the Yukon Status of Women council.

What is the provincial government doing about implementing any of these recommendations? What is it doing about even listening to the concerns of these women? Is there anyone in your ministry who is now listening to these concerns? Is there anyone in your ministry who is now thinking in terms of integrating them? The provincial government has taken the position that it is not going to participate in the public hearing process and the whole pipeline business. How are you going to hear about this? You're not funding any research. I could be completely wrong, but I have been in touch with the Fort Nelson women, and they tell me that there is no funding: there is no research, there are no inquiries coming out of your ministry on this. They are expressing some real concerns about what is going to happen to their community once this workforce moves in with its families.

One of the things they reminded me of was that in their report they talked about February as their suicide month. They brought to my attention that this year was no different, that indeed they did have an increase in the number of successful suicides, if one can be so bizarre as to use the term "successful" when one is talking about suicide.

They were talking about the fact that mental health remains their biggest problem. There used to be a travelling psychologist who used to go through Fort Nelson. That person is no longer there; that visiting psychologist has been removed.

They are talking about the fact that there are men sleeping on cots in the church at night because of the lack of accommodation. There are no plans to deal with additional housing needs because, again, the community sees this as being a temporary situation, and they don't want to invest a large sum of money in trying to deal with this. I want to quote from one of their reports: "Women are gravely concerned about the already insufficient social services of Fort Nelson being stretched beyond any usefulness to meet the housing and service needs of workers and families that both government and pipeline companies are claiming that they have no responsibility for." If ever there was a time when the Ministry of Economic Development needed a women's economics rights branch, it's now. It was in place. It was doing a very effective job. You yourself, Mr. Minister, talked about the educational job that needs to be done. That was part of its responsibility. The representatives from that branch were travelling around the province, advising all kinds of women and women's groups about getting into small business. They were actively involved in helping women develop some sort of economic independence. In particular, in the north and the rural areas, where that was needed, you have wiped out that branch.

To say it is now integrated into social development, because you are looking at persons rather than at women, is not the question. There isn't any question about whether you were looking at persons or not. I should hope you were looking at persons. It is not your responsibility to look at animals or birds or fish; you are supposed to be looking at persons, There was a recognition that, for a time at least, those persons who happened to be female needed some particular looking at and listening to. That's why that section was introduced. To say that it's now been integrated into a social policy section because you're looking at persons doesn't mean anything. It means you've decided that women are no longer going to be a concern of your department; they're going to be ignored; they're going to become invisible again. That's what you've decided. At this time when the north in particular needs these kinds of integrated services and the kind of particular perception they have to offer, that department has been wiped out.

It's a clear act of stupidity on your part, Mr. Minister. I would like you to respond to that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the member's comments. The mandate of the women's economic branch has not been wiped out, and to say so is not right. I would suggest you go to the ministry and have a talk with the person in charge of that particular department. As a matter of fact, the mandate has been widened. A lot of things you were talking about clearly belong under another branch of government, when you talk about provision of services in a particular area.

With regard to the pipeline, we will be assessing that. Hearings do not necessarily always come up with the answers. We will be analysing that. The pipeline is off one day and on the next day. We'll get excited about that and take some action when we're sure the pipeline is going ahead.

With regard to the new townsite, the women's rights branch headed the economic impact on that particular development. We will certainly take into consideration their recommendations when that development goes ahead. To say we've wiped out the branch is not true.

MS. BROWN: The minister was the person who, when I inquired where the branch was, told me it was no longer there. The minister was the person who said there was now something new called — I think he said — the social development section or something that was now looking after people. Those were the minister's words. I didn't say the branch had been wiped out. I just said I couldn't find it anywhere in the estimates. At that point, the minister informed the House there was something new called "social research," and somehow the mandate to look after people, rather than deal with the concerns raised by women in the first place, which made the implementation of such a branch necessary, was no longer a necessity, as he perceived it.

Again, I keep quoting from the Fort Nelson Women's Centre, because that’s a group I deal with. I keep in contact with them. I'm sure that by talking about them I'm putting their funding in jeopardy. They'll probably find their funding is wiped out as a result of this. However, what must be, must be. But they talk about the fact that there has been a pre-construction influx of people into the community and that this has increased the social problems and is straining....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What period are you talking about — two years ago!

MS. BROWN: No, this is 1979 that I got this from. January 9, 1979; April 6, 1979; December 1978 — this is not two years ago.

[ Page 566 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those are the studies, but when you were talking to the women they said....

MS. BROWN: No, I updated this by re-telephoning, if there is such a word, to find out what has happened since then, because I knew that your estimates were coming up, Mr. Minister. I know that the Ministry of Health is the one that has to deal with the mental health needs and Human Resources has to deal with the human resource needs, but as the economic planner for the province, as the person who has the big overview, the economic rights branch in your ministry, when it existed, monitored those other ministries and saw to it that those services were there. That was part of their function.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They still have that same function.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: The deputy is just whispering an answer in his ear, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. Well, as I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, this particular branch of the ministry.... Although it's not there under the same deal, the function is still there. As a matter of fact it has been expanded, and I'd be quite happy to send you a copy of a letter which I sent to the deputy some months ago expanding the mandate of the women's economic rights branch.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much. What I would appreciate is to have from the minister some indication of the budget which this expanded branch now has to work with, and some indication of the response to the recommendation by this northern women's task force and the recommendation brought down by the Fort Nelson women in terms of what's going to happen to their community as a result of the on-again, off-again pipeline. As I said, they have said already that there is an influx of pre-construction people. So if you would care to share with us the budget and some kind of indication of these recommendations, the ones that have to do with your day care, which probably was done by your branch a year ago.... It doesn't have a date on it, but it was probably submitted by your branch. It said: "The appropriate child-care scheme for the new town...." That recommendation and the other recommendations that have to do with the integration of housing needs and child care and mental health needs into the development of the new town.... Also what kind of planning do you have to deal with the whole thing of the small businesses in the community, which are saying that this is a temporary boom situation, and therefore we are not going to invest a log of money in expanding our services, which, as I mentioned earlier, is causing a hardship to people? That kind of information would be of use to me.

They're talking about things like child abuse, transition houses, housing facilities, and the fact that the present infrastructure in the schools, child-care facilities, healthcare facilities and mental health facilities is overtaxed. So would you tell me what the plan is for that community? That's what I want to find out: what the plan is, what budget we're working with.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to tell you that until the pipeline is a definite reality, there is no plan, because we have to decide first of all if the pipeline is going to be built and where the camps are going to be located. We can't go in and do a study on the actual needs until we have something definite to work on, and the member should recognize that.

Now with regard to the women's rights branch, as she calls it, it is integrated into vote 57 and policy planning and research and business and industrial development. It's integrated into there with the same mandate. It's not set out separately as a women's economic rights branch, but they're still doing the same function. As a matter of fact they have a wider function now than they used to have.

MS. BROWN: That's really all I want the minister to make available to me: the new mandate, the new budget, the new tasks which have been placed under this department, because I know what they used to have to do and I know what their budget used to be. If it's been expanded and it's bigger and they're better than they used to be, and they're implementing these recommendations, this is the kind of information that I would like you to share with me. What department should I appeal to in terms of the pre-construction impact on this town? It's happening. You're waiting for a decision to be made about the pipeline before you make a commitment one way or another. But while you are waiting, people are moving into these towns, and, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — it's laid out right here. There are people sleeping in church basements; the social facilities are overtaxed; the health care facilities are overtaxed; the mental health facilities no longer exist because, in fact, what happened to the travelling psychologist is that the travelling psychologist was never there when an emergency arose — by then the travelling psychologist had travelled on to somewhere else, and in frustration the travelling psychologist travelled right out of the area and has not been seen or heard from since. So if you are not responsible for some kind of economic plan, some grand plan for this area, to whom should I appeal on behalf of this town, in terms of what's happening as a result of the pre-construction impact?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to send you a copy of the increased mandate, but I don't know if we can break out the actual number of persons. It's integrated, but it's there with the same mandate.

I'm very interested in your comments on this pre-construction impact. When the pipeline was first announced, there was an influx of workers into Fort Nelson and Fort St. John. But my understanding of the situation at the present is that that has died down and people are not coming in. Now Fort Nelson is a thriving and booming community, but not because of the pipeline; it is because of what is generally happening in the petroleum industry there. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but if there are those problems that you say exist there today, then we should be talking to the other ministries. But I don't think, Madam Member, with all due respect to you, that this is the actual situation caused by a pre-influx of construction workers for the pipeline.

If we have problems in Fort Nelson with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Human Resources or any other ministries, I'd be most happy to assist in getting additional

[ Page 567 ]

services if they're needed. That is a frontier town, and people who live there and people who live and develop the north should have the same services that people who live in downtown Vancouver have — and let me assure you of that. I've been a member representing the north for quite some time, and I want to tell you that those people up there do deserve equal opportunity, equal services in all branches of government. If they're not giving it, let me know; let the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) know. But to come in here and talk about these things, if they've been existing.... You know, I have just a little bit of difficulty with it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister knew, because according to my copy of the letter, with the report, a copy of the letter went to the minister as well. I'm sorry this is news to him. I'll share my copy with him again, but according to the material I'm using there's a copy to Hon. Don Phillips, MLA, South Peace River. Now is that the Don Phillips, MLA, South Peace River, to whom I'm speaking at this time? Because it's all here. I thought we were discussing something that we were both familiar with, Mr. Minister; I had no idea that it was news to you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It is. I haven't seen the correspondence.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm very, very sorry about that, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be very happy to copy it, and maybe I should send it somewhere else this time since the correct address didn't reach the minister last time. Maybe I need a new address for the minister. But, in fact, all of the information that I'm using here is information that was shared with the then member for North Peace River, Mr. Ed Smith, and the present minister. A Mr. Howard Lloyd also received copies. So I'm sorry, I thought I was dealing with material that was familiar to the minister, and that's why I raised it in the first place.

In any event, I am particularly interested in your commitment to get me the information about the expanded mandate of the women's economic rights branch, its expanded budget, and also some response about what's happened to the recommendations which came down from these various task forces — in terms of your ministry implementing those recommendations.

MR. BRUMMET: I have just a few brief comments, since Fort Nelson has been mentioned here. I think that the brief that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is quoting from has come across my desk as well. But being there and being familiar with the total situation, I think the member for South Peace River and I can put it into proper perspective.

I think what you have reflected in that material is a very small minority view. We know, or at least I know, quite a few women in Fort Nelson, and they simply form an integral part of the community. Many of them don't want special women's groups. They don't want special women's consideration. They have equality of opportunity. They fit into the community where they want. All that you have to do is send up a request to say, "Are any of you women in Fort Nelson unhappy?" and you will find three or four that will get together and submit a wonderful brief to you.

You seem to take objection to the minister referring to the women as "people," but we don't make a distinction. The majority of women there are not pleading for this. You may be talking about a minority group. You're talking about a very small group that is sending you these briefs.

As I mentioned before, we can put it into proper perspective. I am much more familiar with the Fort Nelson situation on a personal basis, and in the campaign, in the election and all the time I have spent up there, I have not been approached by any of these people with this concern.

MS. BROWN: Well, I know why. I wouldn't approach you either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BRUMMET: I think that if it were a general concern, Mr. Chairman, we would be approached.

MS. BROWN: He's hopeless.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to make a couple more comments in view of the general, wide-ranging debate. One of the things that hasn't been discussed here in terms of economic development is the transportation system in the province.

We've heard a good deal about the fact that Pacific Western Airlines moved its head office to Edmonton. We've had considerable debate in this House about whether they should have moved or whether they shouldn't have moved or whether the previous NDP administration should have done something about it.

But I think it's incumbent on this minister to seriously examine what's happening in air transportation in British Columbia. A serious study should be made of a B.C. air system — a system that serves the north, with a head office in the north if necessary. Don't discount the idea of a government-owned service: don't become an ideological fanatic about that, because a government-owned service may be the most feasible way to enter an appropriate B.C. air service to help economic development in this province and in the west.

Just because we lost PWA's head office doesn't mean British Columbians don't have the capacity to get into their own air service and give PWA some really good competition in the province. I think, to get on with the question of economic development, the minister should have a very serious look at getting into the air business in B.C.

The next thing I wanted to deal with was inspired by the member for North Vancouver, who talked about the whole question of coal as an energy source in British Columbia. I am still convinced that we have to examine wood waste in a practical way as an alternative energy source. I would like to refer the minister to a study which was prepared for the Ministry of Environment. It's an Ottawa study dealing with large-scale methanol fuel production from surplus Canadian forest biomass. It's admittedly a preliminary study, but it has within it some very exciting prospects. They set up a plant in Prince George using surplus wood products in that area. Very substantial volumes of methanol can be created, and with the way energy prices are rising, this is becoming more and more a feasible alternative for us in British Columbia in the production of methanol, which can be used as an alternative to gasoline. You can use gasoline or

[ Page 568 ]

methanol. The cost of converting your vehicle is, according to this study, as low as $100. You could convert all of the vehicles in British Columbia very easily to use methanol from wood waste.

It's something that we should be examining very seriously in terms of the economic development of the north. A good section of the north — and the minister knows more about the north than I do — has uneconomic forest areas that aren't prime in terms of lumber production, but they may be very prime in harvesting for things like methanol, harvesting for alternative energy sources.

I would very much recommend this particular study to be carried further in his ministry. It's admittedly a preliminary study, but it contains within it some exciting prospects for British Columbia in terms of alternative energy.

The last thing I wanted to ask the minister was: in earlier remarks he indicated he would be able to tell me the actual expenditure of the item on small business. I realize the budget for '78-'79 was $1 million for the small business training program; the budget for this year is nil. However, I understand that's a transfer, but I'm still interested, through you, Mr. Chairman, in knowing the actual expenditure last year of that $1 million. Did we spend our $1 million? Did we underspend it? Where do we stand in terms of the actual dollars put into what I think is a very important part of the minister's responsibility?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I was just going to answer your question, Mr. Member, prior to the break for dinner. The budget was set up at $1 million. To the end of April 1979, $195,650 had been expended. Now you might say that's a very small portion of the $1 million which was budgeted. It took us a little while to get the contract with the chamber of commerce, and we've had some difficulty in getting the proper educational program and who's going to deliver it. The concept is still there; we know it has to be done, and we have been working with BCIT. You just don't come up with a program that we want to make it effective, and you can appreciate that. There are some smaller courses being carried out by the colleges in the various regions, but I recognize the importance of it. The other thing I'm pointing out is that there's not much sense in having the actual course unless you have the delivery system and unless you can have some method of getting those businessmen who need the education and the upgrading out to take the course. So there are some problems there that we're still working on. The overall concept remains.

It is interesting to note that with the great economic development taking place in British Columbia today, PWA has more employees here now than they had when they moved their head office to Edmonton. As you know, Canadian Pacific Air is a big industry in British Columbia. A recent announcement just said they're going to spend millions of dollars in upgrading their plant here; we've got some competition. Because CP Air now has the mandate to touch those eastern markets there is pressure from eastern Canada to have CP Air move some of its offices to Ontario. We're going to have to watch very closely to see that that doesn't happen. Air Canada moved out of Winnipeg some years ago, and it hurt that community. We will be monitoring that. A B.C. airline? Yes, it would be nice to have a B.C. airline for regional travel. CP Air started in British Columbia, PWA started in British Columbia; maybe we'll have to start another one. But it has to be economical. I'm not saying the government is going to get into it; but if there were a need, and that need were not being served, then we'd certainly have to take a look at it.

MR. COCKE: Ask your own constituents about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When there is an energy crisis it is great to talk about solar energy and wind energy and methanol, and all these. But we are really looking at a very small percentage of the total energy requirements if we used all of them. There is a new method of converting wood waste to pellets, which can be transported. There is a plant in British Columbia, and the beautiful thing about this plant is that you could have that plant in an area where there is a limited amount of hog fuel. You could produce the pellets and they could be trucked to a central area to put into a large converter to make steam or electricity. That whole area is certainly under review. Now that we have the Science Council, they will be doing further studies on methanol. But methanol in some of the Scandinavian countries is used quite extensively as a fuel in automobiles and in other internal combustion engines. I'm not sure how great a future it has, but certainly it has to be looked at.

MR. COCKE: I was interested to hear the minister talking about the wonders of PWA. Probably one of the biggest mistakes of our government was to let Peter the Red get away with that airline. What he's actually done, he did right under the minister's nose, and possibly he has a few more employees here, although I rather doubt it. I know many people who work for PWA — all seem to be working part-time these days. But in any event, what he's managed to do successfully with PWA is to use British Columbia as the milch cow, as the real source of revenue for the airline, while he uses that revenue for his own northern development, using his airline. That's our big problem here.

The airline is not terribly depressed if it loses a run in B.C. from time to time, particularly if the passenger load is small that particular day — you'll find a breakdown or something of that nature. But I'll tell you right now that they sure get the service in the north. It's a shame. I think we made a real mistake, when we were government, in not pursuing it. We were catching so much flak from the Socreds — that member was one of them — in those days for having picked up one or two corporations that were helping bail this province out....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Swan Valley Foods.

MR. COCKE: The minister sits there all shiny and lovely in this chamber talking about Swan Valley Foods, when they've been merchandising those BCRIC shares. I just can't believe it, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about air service. He'd better get cracking: either give some support for an air service that is uniquely British Columbian....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He's quite right. We've done a lot of development of air services in this province.

But, Mr. Chairman, when we lose that local authority, as we do on so many things.... As I was pointing out a

[ Page 569 ]

while ago, our service industry is run from the eastern part of this country, and a lot of it is run from another country altogether. That's why we spend so much time wringing our hands and saying: "Why is it we just can't seem to get this province on a course of real success?"

Mr. Chairman, I think that is one area that we should really be looking at very, very carefully. Those that indicate that Mr. Lougheed made a proper investment are quite right; but, boy, is he ever using us. That Kamloops run, the Kelowna run, and the run to Prince George are the richest runs on that airline, and that carries the works of his northern development, and he can just sit back and not even have to touch his heritage fund. It's a marvelous situation for Alberta, but rather lacklustre for us.

One thing that amazes me about this minister. I listened to his reply to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). He was telling about how he's expanded this women's economic rights branch — expanded it to the extent that he's so ashamed of it he's hidden it in the estimates and he says it is somewhere in "Administration," under vote 57. What is it, Mr. Minister? Is it a clerk 4, step 5? What are we talking about? What are you ashamed of? Why isn't it in your votes?

That member over there says: "Oh, the women in Fort Nelson are all satisfied."

MR. BRUMMET: I did not.

MR. COCKE: What does he know about it? Who does he ever talk to? [Laughter.] Keep your mind where it should be, Mr. Minister. You know, Mr. Chairman, he goes up there and he talks to the wives of the chamber of commerce at a cocktail party. They've lived there for many, many years, and some of them are quite satisfied.

MS. BROWN: They're committing suicide too.

MR. BRUMMET: And you know all about it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I come from the north myself — just as far north as many of the areas of this province. I was born in Athabasca, Alberta, and I spent a lot of time there. I know all about cabin fever.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I probably spent more time in the north than you did.

In any event, there are a number of people in all northern communities.... I was Minister of Health; I went around this province, into every community, including that community, and found a lot of people in a lot of trouble just because governments don't give a darn — and it's about time they did.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. It happens under every circumstance. That's no reason that we shouldn’t be following it up. We did. We set up the human rights branch. We set up a number of things when we were government in order to give people access to government. I hope that you take your defence back up to that country with you and show people what you had to say to protect the people in your country.

I'm ashamed that a person will get up in this House and suggest that it's just a bunch of rubbish that is being put forward in that brief. He knows it's not rubbish, Mr. Chairman. If the minister is doing so much in this area, why don't we see it in the votes? What's he trying to hide? What's he ashamed of? It just is not there. The vote that he named was vote 57. Do you know what that says to me? That he's spending $7 million on administration We have no idea from that. He hasn't put forward a report. He hasn't put forward anything conclusive, other than to say: "We're doing a lot." But we see no evidence of it, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman.

I suggest that the minister get with it and tell us something he can back up with some sort of figures and material.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Some of the comments made by the member for New Westminster were very, very interesting. You talk about setting up a women’s economic branch in the Ministry of Economic Development. You set it up, but none of those positions ever went through your Treasury Board or through your public service and were finally established. You set it up as a glossy painting only. It had no meaning. So don't stand up there and give me this crap.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to withdraw that word, if you will, please,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw it and substitute the word "garbage.”

The member for New Westminster was talking about the mistake they made when they didn't buy PWA. I'll tell you why they didn't buy PWA. They were shovelling money out the back end of the truck so fast that when the opportunity came, there was no money left to buy PWA, or they would have bought it. That's a fact.

I have to say that I think it might have been good for the province. But I'm glad they didn’t buy PWA, because had they bought PWA and run it like they ran the ferry service or the British Columbia Railway or the transit service, it would have been a disaster to this province worse than the one they perpetrated when they were government.

MR. COCKE: I would just like to say to this minister that he really doesn't understand his own mandate. He hasn't a clue: that's why we're in so much trouble. He can get up and talk about what the previous government did or did not do. That's ancient history. Mr. Member. You know as well as I do that we were the best government this country has seen. Leaving that aside, all I want to ask him is what he has done. What has he done for this province except talk? Nothing. He went over to Japan and came back empty-handed. Anywhere he goes, he comes back empty-handed. He sits in this House and says: "Let me out of here, so I can go out and do some more. Do some more of what? We've seen no evidence of anything this minister has done to date.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's evident that the member for New Westminster has his eyes closed now, the same as he did when he was government. He couldn’t see what was going on when he was government. He might have. I have a

[ Page 570 ]

little appreciation that he's got a brain. He might have seen what his colleagues were doing to the economy of this province. He might have said something. But he's got his blinkers on today if he can't see what's happening in British Columbia: how the economy is moving ahead, how the long-term planning is happening. It's happening, my friend. Investment is coming in here. This happens to be the brightest spot in all of North America to invest in today. Believe me, it's happening. It's happening because of the policies of this government; make no mistake about that. That bothers you, Mr. Member. You can heap all the personal abuse that you wish to on me, but history will prove that I was one of the greatest Economic Development ministers this province ever had.

Some of the policies that we brought in are being copied not only by the national government but certainly by other provinces in Canada. Who led the way? When we became government we had to sell the fact that growth was essential for a solid tax base. They had left an atmosphere of no-growth here. I don't know where they thought the money for the tax base was going to come from. You go ahead, but please open your eyes once in a while and read the facts.

MR. BARBER: When we open our eyes and read the facts about small business bankruptcies in British Columbia, we know just what kind of an Economic Development minister you've been. The best indeed! Certainly you are the most modest, for good reason.

First of all, I wonder if the minister would give some advice. Would he be prepared to debate tourism matters here, or would he prefer to debate that under vote 205? He's responsible for both.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a different portfolio, in the Chair's opinion. We will deal with vote 56.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that, but according to the rules, the minister is only paid for one of the portfolios, and it's this one here.

MS. BROWN: No, we're not paying him for this one.

MR. BARBER: Well, we may, with some regrets, be paying him under this vote. Accordingly, I understand the rules apply as such.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote on the floor right now is vote 56, and we should confine our remarks to that, please.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you can debate any and every aspect of the minister's responsibility under his salary vote. We have agreed from time to time that we will do it in order for convenience sake. But if the member wishes, or if any other person wishes, to debate any aspect of his responsibility, they may do so under his salary vote. That is the only place that it should be relevant. We've been using a little bit of procedure lately that is not the real procedure, nor is it a long-term rule of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is going to have to tell all members that we have vote 56 in front of us, which is the Ministry of Economic Development, and that is the vote that we are discussing at this point. That is the opinion of the Chair. The Chair recognizes the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), on vote 56.

MR. BARBER: There are some other matters I will discuss first, but with all respect, perhaps you should speak to the Clerk. It is the practice in the House, and you know it, that under the salary vote you can discuss any ministerial responsibility.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why argue about it? I said I'd discuss anything.

MR. BARBER: I know you will, because you know the rules too, but the Chairman is a new member and doesn't know the rules. Perhaps you should speak to the Clerk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor. It is the Chair's opinion that we will discuss vote 56, the Ministry of Economic Development. Please carry on.

MR. BARBER: I'll get to tourism in a bit, by and by.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I'd just like to say that tourism is Economic Development.

MR. BARBER: I quite agree.

First of all, if I may support the comments of my colleague for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), an air service in Canada is by and large a loser. One of the reasons why so many transportation services in this country are owned as public enterprises rather than private — with the exception of certain metropolitan runs and certain highly exclusive runs — is that in a country like our own, which is essentially 200 miles wide and 5,000 miles long, it is a loser. That's how it's going to be in this country; we recognize that.

I think it is a fundamental responsibility of a competent administration to be willing to accept the long-term value of development, as did a former Social Credit Premier in his view of the usefulness of B.C. Rail, another loser itself. Directly it was a loser, but indirectly it has been profitable to the whole province.

So it is with air service in the north, with the exception of a few passenger runs in this province. By and large, air service isn't going to make money. By and large, however, planned competently, with some scientific sense of growth and centres of growth, air service could and should be supported and, if necessary, be subsidized by the public through an appropriate public enterprise.

I want to support the comments of the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) when he argues that it may well be that the government has the role as the owner and developer of a new, third carrier in British Columbia. It could serve those areas where private enterprise can't make a buck, and where it's unreasonable to expect them to want to lose money instead of make money. It is reasonable that private enterprise have a role there. It's reasonable that people understand from the beginning that private enterprise cannot go in where there is no profit in the narrowest and quickest sense. But public enterprise can and should go in where the profit is long-term; where the benefits are long-term, where the development is long-term and where finally and ultimately we all benefit thereby.

[ Page 571 ]

I think there is a role for a study of a public enterprise air service in British Columbia that serves those areas where private enterprise can't make a profit, nor should it be expected to. It's appropriate and fair that we call on the minister to initiate those studies.

I want to talk about another matter, and it's the LILA program. I wonder if the minister might at this moment inform the House as to his ministry's commitment to and participation in the LILA program. I see he's looking at his notes, so I'll hold on for a moment. Do you want to go on that right now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm ready.

MR. BARBER: It's a program, as the minister is well aware, of some considerable value to small business in British Columbia. It allows loans, some of which — all of which, in some instances — are forgivable, up to an amount of $30,000. I wonder if the minister might tell us of his ministry's involvement in the LILA program across British Columbia, and what they've been able to do with it in the last year.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad the member for Victoria has complimented me on the new, innovative programs that we've brought in, but I wish you'd get them straightened out. You're really talking about the ASEP program when you're talking about $30,000. That is the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, and it's a good program. We've assisted — the last figure I have — 175 businesses with average loans of $17,000 up to $30,000 and as low as $5,000. It's been a good program: forgivable loan. It's an innovative program being looked at by other provinces. It's not a grant, but a forgivable loan.

The LILA program is another innovative program that we're looking at to expand. As you know, it started out with $20 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: Well, we haven't gone into the antique furniture business in downtown Victoria. I would imagine if the member is running it, why.... No, I won't say that.

But it's very interesting to note that the low-interest loan program has helped a number of industries in various sectors, including high technology industries, manufacturing and fabrication industries, the forestry industry, the fishing industry and agriculture. It's been a good program. It hasn't been available in the lower mainland area, and that's why we have this $5 million surplus that we're putting into this program to expand it.

I want to tell the House that I am looking at all of those programs. They were new and innovative. Some of them have been very successful, but we've always got to look at them in terms of being able to look in the mirror to see whether they are accomplishing what we set out for them to accomplish.

The LILA program is good. As you know, it is being administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation. It has helped a lot of areas, but we have to look at the same type of program to apply to downtown Victoria and the Vancouver area. That's why we have the $5 million available.

But I want to tell you right now that I'm not sure that it's going to be the same type of LILA program. It may be to start with, but we're looking at some new ideas to actually determine where we best can help the small businessman, where we can help the small manufacturers. We may be changing the program to allow it to serve and accomplish what we want it to accomplish with better methods.

MR. BARBER: I'm happy to give credit where it's due. and it's due here to the minister. ASEP and LILA are good programs. The federal government also deserves some credit for the money they’ve put into them by and by. They've contributed 50-50, I think.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The taxpayers too.

MR. BARBER: The taxpayers deserve all the credit. Be that as it may, the minister correctly points out that the LILA program is not available in greater Victoria, and that's a real problem here. I want to talk about that for a moment, and I would like, if I might, to see if one could win an undertaking from the minister.

As the minister is well aware, a business that wished to take advantage of the LILA program in Brentwood Bay in greater Victoria cannot do so. It is excluded; it may not do so. However, if it went two miles across the water to Mill Bay, it could. In an area like Victoria, this is absurd. It just doesn't make any sense at all. The boundary basically is the Sooke watershed. That's where the boundary is.

I have constituents, small businesspeople who come to me to talk about this, and I know they've been to the minister. They've been to the minister. They've told me that for them it is a difficult matter to try and compete with a business in the same field in Kelowna, say, that can get the money. a forgivable loan.... Now if that isn't a grant, I don't know what it is, but if you prefer, call it a forgivable loan.

I want to make the point, because I promised them I would. I would be happy to hear you as well, but I undertook to raise this myself on their behalf, to argue as effectively as I can that it is for them a matter of simple unfair competition. Their competitors elsewhere in every other part of the province save Vancouver can take advantage of a joint federal and provincial program from which they are excluded. They argue: "We pay taxes to support those programs. We pay our taxes in British Columbia to support the economy here and all those other programs as well as LILA and ASEP. but we’re excluded. Accordingly, it's unfair competition. Why are you doing that to us?"

My reply is that that's a good question. That's a really fair question. If the minister is prepared to take a look at that, could he tell us when he is prepared to announce the result of the second look? Because these business people have a good case. It's not fair that a guy who is in small manufacturing in Victoria has to compete, together with all of the problems of being on Vancouver Island in the first place, with guys who can operate the same business on the mainland and have the advantage of access to all these other programs in the second. It's not fair for them.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to remind the member for Victoria — and I think I've told you this before — that we

[ Page 572 ]

did our level best to have Victoria included in the original IDSA agreement. We wanted them included. I tried again the first year. After the first year of the IDS agreement I pleaded with the minister here at Victoria to have the whole Victoria area included in it. It was a federal decision. The provincial government wanted it, and the federal government wouldn't let us have it. That's why we're bringing in our own program, Mr. Member. Yes, we're going to bring it in. We're going to bring in the LILA program to apply.

I can't tell you the exact date, because I'm taking a look at how we're going to implement it and who's going to be the carrier of it, who is going to look after the actual implementation of the program.

But that's from the provincial government, because we recognize the need. As you know, we've made one boundary change out there on the IDSA program to bring in the Trident deal under the program. I had to plead and beg with the federal government. What frustrates us here in British Columbia, as you know, Mr. Member.... Look, it's our money. We have to go 3,000 miles to get it and then we're told how to spend it, and that's one of the areas that we've been fighting with Ottawa to change, you know.

We have gone to Ottawa; we have talked about these programs; we have led the way in trying to get Ottawa to change its mind on many of these programs because we haven't sat here and accepted the status quo. We want programs to work. We don't want to give the taxpayers' money away; we want to invest some seed money and have private enterprise invest the bulk of it, and that's happening in many of the programs. We've got some problems on the boundary deal, and I don't like being told how to spend our own money by the bureaucrats back in Ottawa. That's why are going to continue to negotiate for a better deal for British Columbia with the same method we have had in the last three and a half years.

MR. BARBER: That's good news, and I'm glad to hear it. I'll pass it along first thing in the morning when I get the Blues to the guys on Fort Street who've been talking to me. It's good news.

As you know, our administration set up, amid some criticism, the B.C. Development Corporation; we share the same concern. To this extent there are no partisan divisions: both sides of the House want healthy, competent, locally owned, private enterprise to succeed in British Columbia. We set up the B.C. Development Corporation, you've carried it on — good for both sides. LILA and ASEP have expanded; good. Now if you're going to propose to change the terms and conditions of those programs, let's increase the ceilings. A ceiling that was appropriate three years ago may not be appropriate now. That's fair; that's good news too. I can only urge you: the quicker, the better.

I've got people in my riding who would like to take advantage, as their competitors can.... I'm not speaking for my colleague from Rupert. He has not been lobbying his MLA. He's on Johnson Street; I'm talking about guys on Fort Street.

Then there is another matter: the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission. Three years ago I was pleased to be very involved in helping to set it up. It is an organization in Victoria which was created by people representing several parties, several interests and several points of view. The Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission came officially into existence two years ago last January; it has, in my own judgment, been highly successful. A great deal of the credit for that goes to people like Frank Carson and Scott Wallace; it certainly goes to the current director of economic development for the commission, Barry Mayhew. He's a fine, first-rate guy. He works hard, he works well, and his problem is that he doesn't have enough money. You were nodding your head all along until I said that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What?

MR. BARBER: I saw you stop nodding your head when I said he doesn't have money. I want to hit you up for some money; I want you to spend more money on these things. Kamloops has a budget of $25,000 a year, greater than that of the economic development commission in Victoria. Victoria is somewhat larger than Kamloops, and the problems we have, located here on the bottom half of an island, partway out in the sea, 75 miles away from the continent, are considerable. The costs of transportation, to say the least, tend to make it difficult for light industry to develop in Victoria. I'm one of those who believes that the future of Victoria industry consists of developing those products whose raw materials come in in a Volkswagen and leave in an envelope. That's appropriate for us; we can afford that here in Victoria. It's clean; it will employ the kind of people who tend to come and live here; it tends not to upset the neighbourhood interests and the environmental values that are highly important in a community like Victoria. We set up — many of us from many different points of view — together three years ago an economic development commission. The problem is it doesn't have the money.

Let me illustrate. The travel budget for the commissioner, who has to compete with all of the other commissioners doing all of their other good work elsewhere, is peanuts. It's just peanuts. He has about $3,000; it's nothing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That will buy a lot of peanuts.

MR. BARBER: It doesn't buy enough peanuts when you've got to compete with economic development commissioners in Vancouver, Kamloops, Seattle and the rest of the places. What I'd like to hear from the minister is whether or not he intends in the coming fiscal year to continue supporting 50-50, as he has done, to his credit, since he began and since we asked him to, and whether or not he would be prepared to increase that grant to allow this commission and others to be able to deal, as they must now, with commissions that exist in other parts of the country that also attract business here.

As you know, there are such commissions very active and very aggressive in Alberta. Alberta is a heavy competitor now for industries that formerly would have come all the way west to British Columbia. They're offering, they're baiting, they're making available support, and they're doing it through that particular instrument, their own economic development commissions, or however they call them, with which we have to compete. It seems to me that, given that fact, the province should be perhaps more aggressive and willing to spend a bit more to allow us to keep pace with all of the other communities and all of the other provinces that have been bright enough to set up their own highly aggressive, highly disciplined and pretty

[ Page 573 ]

imaginative versions of our economic development commissions. The one in Victoria is trying to do a good job.

I'd like to point out that organized labour in Victoria is heavily involved in and heavily committed to our Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission. It's a matter of public record that the chairman of the commission is Mr. Larry Ryan, a much respected man. He's an alderman in Victoria; he's also the secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Labour Council. He's the chairman of our economic development commission. Here labour and capital are getting along, because they both see the same problem in largely the same way and they both understand the need to apply basically the same remedies. But Larry Ryan would say — I've discussed the matter with him — and so would Barry Mayhew, that they just don't have enough money to compete. It's difficult enough for business to compete in Victoria as it is, being at the bottom end of an island; it's even harder for the economic development commission to compete. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to commit himself tonight or in the forthcoming fiscal year to the increased and more aggressive support of economic development commissions here and across the rest of the province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I can stand all of these compliments, because it was under this government and this ministry that we came out with these bold new economic commissions throughout the province. You know something? We said: "Now we're not going to put them in forever so that these fellows just go out and get fat and lazy and don't do their job. We want economic development commissions to work, so the funding is set so that it's diminishing each year — 90 percent, 70 percent, 50 percent, and the third year no funding. It's set up specifically so that we wouldn't build in a bureaucracy and the industrial commissioners get out there and say: "Well, boy, I'm hired for life." I've said that we'll look at it on an individual basis, and I've made a commitment to those assembled industrial commissioners: "If you're doing a good job, you don't have to worry about your job." Because if they're working, I want to see them improved. We're going to have to take a look at the boundaries; we've got some problems there with the new idea. I'm glad to hear you say that it is working. Yes, it is working.

With regard to Victoria, I want to tell the member that I was part of the original meetings setting up this industrial commission.

MR. BARBER: We were in the same room, Don. I saw you there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, you didn't mention my name, and I just thought maybe you had forgotten.

MR. BARBER: I said to your credit you supported it.

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: I made a commitment. I said: "Yes, if you're that interested and it will do a good job, I'll fund you 50 percent." I'm telling you tonight, sure, we'll fund you 50 percent for another year. We'll take a look at increasing the budget.

MR. BARBER: Did I hear you say that there was a program wherein you were committed to 90 percent, 75 percent and 50 percent funding of economic development commissions?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's in the outlying areas where it's funded. That is the program under IDSA that we set up.

MR. BARBER: But it wouldn't apply 90 percent in Victoria. I know we never got 90 percent; we only got 50 percent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't forget that the city of Vancouver funds its industrial commission 100 percent. So we've made an exception because Victoria is the capital region, and we looked at all the ifs ands and buts and said yes, if they want to help themselves and they're interested, we'll go ahead with it, I’ve told you, we'll fund it for another year.

MR. BARBER: How much?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I said we'd take a look at increasing it too, and I'm telling you we'll take a look at increasing it. Tell them to come up and have a talk with us and certainly we'll take a look at it.

MR. BARBER: I'll take the Blues to Barry first thing in the morning.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Barry knows that I'm....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One at a time, please.

MR. BARBER: Oops! It's such an agreeable conversation for once. It's nice to have it.

When you take a look at their application, I hope you will give some allowance to and some support of the particular requirement of this and any other commissioner to be able to travel personally from time to time to make the personal connections with the personal impact that only a personal visit can have. At the moment his budget is totally inadequate for that. I think to compare it with Vancouver is not entirely reasonable because, as the minister knows, the tax base and the industrial base in Vancouver is enormously greater than here. In 1967 Victoria had some 20 more industrial enterprises than did Richmond. This year Richmond has 200 more than Victoria does. Other parts of the province have been growing enormously more rapidly, right across the straits and elsewhere, than has Victoria.

We've got some real problems in this city. It's not an industrial town. No one wants a steel mill; no one wants industrial parks; no one wants much sometimes until things get desperate, which is how it was that so many of us, including yourself, with all credit due, got together in that room as we did so many times three years ago. That's how we came to agree on it. Now that we've agreed on the fundamentals of it, I think it would be a big mistake to withdraw significant funding too early. And I know what you've said. I'm just restating that when they come to you to ask for more, I hope you'll be willing to support more money for the ability of the commissioner to travel personally from time to time to make the case for us in Victoria. It's really important to them.

[ Page 574 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to remind the member that I have an office here in the building and I have a phone. I'm usually available. You could have come in and talked to me on this, or Barry could have come in and talked to me on it. We'd streamline this House a whole lot if we could take these little individual problems you have.... You know, I've never bitten an opposition MLA in my life, and when I was in opposition I used to go into minister's offices and fight for my constituents. I think we'd cut down and streamline these estimates if we'd take these little individual problems to the minister, and you can still get your credit for it in your constituency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps this conversation might be better discussed in another forum.

MR. BARBER: Well, from time to time I do go to certain ministers. Other times it seems more appropriate to raise the matters here. We all judge that, don't we, personally. I know you used to raise those matters. I watched you from the gallery doing so for your constituency.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Me?

MR. BARBER: Yes, you.

I want to talk about the Princess Marguerite. The minister has by now, I'm sure, received the report I asked you about in question period two weeks ago on the Princess.... No? Who opens your mail? They sent it to you. I was told they sent it to you. You haven't received the report? The report is on the costs of upgrading and refitting the Marguerite to meet the U.S. pollution standards and....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You sit down, and I'll tell you about the Marguerite.

MR. BARBER: Well, let me ask you some questions so that you can answer the whole thing. It's a matter of record, as the minister knows, that there have been serious morale problems aboard the Marguerite. The minister knows that senior management of B.C. Steamships has received petitions, letters of complaint and grievances at a very high level from the ordinary working staff of the Marguerite. I myself received a petition signed, I guess, by about 30 of them just a week ago, and I believe the minister got a copy. Could the minister as well, when he rises to tell me what's going to happen to the Marguerite vessel, tell me whether or not he's contemplating any changes in senior management? It strikes me that it's most unusual that there are so many complaints from so many areas of the workforce aboard the Marguerite and onshore in B.C. Steamships as well. I wonder if there are some management problems that could be resolved by personnel changes, by a structure that works more appropriately or by some new decision-making process. It's simply not necessary that there be so many complaints; its bad for the service. The passengers pick up on it. They sense what's happening when poor morale is at hand on board ship. It hurts the service; it hurts the revenue of the company. It does all sorts of things that are not productive, and no one wants them. I wonder if the minister could report as well on the labour and management problems on board the Princess Marguerite.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've just had the responsibility for the Marguerite for a month or a month and a half. I've had a meeting with management, and I'm going to be having my first board of directors meeting with the new board very shortly, as soon I can find time from the House. There is a lot of controversy around the Marguerite. Some of it is imagined, and some of it is real. When we have a properly constituted board of directors meeting, we will discuss those problems. I have just finally got so that I am a shareholder on behalf of the people, and I will be having a board meeting very shortly. I'm certainly not going to be listening to hearsay, because we're dealing with a very touchy subject here — people's personalities and so forth. I think we have to be very careful.

The Marguerite is having the best year it's ever had. I think that the record for June was 66,000 people travelling on the Marguerite — up 32 percent over last year. What I want to do is to have a board of directors meeting. I've asked for some reports on the present ship. How is the hull? What will it cost to renovate it? We've got to take a look at that versus a new ship, versus maybe putting another ship on. We've got to make those decisions, and we will make them in due course, but I'm not going to go in with a sledge hammer and throw my weight around. I don't know much about running ships, I don't mind telling you. I'm seeking some expert advice, and I'm having some studies done at the present time which may lead to more detailed cost studies. I want to know the economics before I make a decision. The way I feel about this is, regardless of what decision I make, I'm going to be damned if I do and damned if I don't. I know the position I'm in, so I'm going to make sure I've got all the information and the best information possible before I make a decision. So that's about all I want to tell you about the Marguerite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, are we to assume that the Tourism portfolio and the Economic Development portfolio are going to be handled under the same particular vote?

MR. BARBER: It's the minister's salary vote, and the minister has agreed he is willing to discuss that under his salary vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, then, please proceed.

MR. BARBER: When the minister reviews these matters I'd like to point out to him three problems, one of which I've already stated.

If he is commissioning a study, then first of all let one of the studies as well be of labour-management relations within B.C. Steamships.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I know the problems; you tell me the solutions.

MR. BARBER: Perhaps privately, because I don't want to discuss personalities here when they're not here to defend themselves; it's not fair. But I'm sure we both know whom we're talking about, and it's really a problem, and neither of us wants to see that problem continue.

Secondly, it's important that the minister appreciate — and I expect he does — that one of the great values and success principles of the Marguerite is that when the

[ Page 575 ]

Americans come here they think they're travelling across the English Channel and they're coming to London. They're going to meet the Queen down at the golden gate. [Laughter.] I mean no offence to anyone here in the gallery tonight who came on the Marguerite. But the point is there is something uniquely and peculiarly English in the whole sensibility aboard the Marguerite. One of the reasons for its success is that from the beginning — thanks to Bob Williams and the people who designed the ship, the new decor, the new atmosphere, who had the wit and the imagination to turn it into a bit of floating England....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Floating greenbelt.

MR. BARBER: And greenbelt. The Americans have enjoyed particularly this really quite remarkable way to come to Victoria. If the Marguerite is lost, so is all that lost. The Queen of Surrey is, for instance, a highly efficient vessel on certain runs. It is much more modern in design, admittedly. It is much more able in a certain economic way to deliver the goods, but I think you would discover a remarkable dropoff in passenger revenue. It's been predicted by many. I simply repeat the prediction.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say I was going to put the Queen of Surrey on here; you're presupposing.

MR. BARBER: Well, I know what your board of directors is considering.

MS. BROWN: Have they told you?

MR. BARBER: Well, I've talked to a couple of people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, hon. members, perhaps the personal aspects of this conversation might better take place in another form.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you come into the office, and we'll chat about it?

MR. BARBER: All right, but I'm trying to make three public arguments now. First of all, there is labour-management relations. They are a real problem. Secondly, only for the gravest reasons should the Marguerite itself ever be removed from the run. The vessel is itself the secret of the success of the run. It's not Seattle to Victoria via water that makes it a success; it's Seattle to Victoria via the Marguerite that allows the run to succeed. It should be pointed out that the Coho, which is a newer vessel, has some three million nautical miles on it. The Marguerite has only one million. The vessel is not in such bad shape at all.

Third, when are you going to get the report the board of directors sent you two weeks ago? The report has been in the papers a week later. I knew about it the day after they put it in the mail. When are you going to get the report, and when you get it, will you table it? I want to make sure my copy is the same as your copy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have told you all I'm going to tell you about the Princess Marguerite. I've said I have to have a meeting. I have to analyse the problem. I want the best information I can get. I know what you're trying to sell. I appreciate your comments. But I've told you all I'm going to tell you about it, because that's all I know about it. I also told you I will walk ahead slowly but steadily, and that decisions will be made on the best information available to me. I will get the best information available. I’m not going to make any great decisions here in this House about the Princess Marguerite. Let me assure you, my friend, that the Princess Marguerite is in good hands.

MR. KING: I want to discuss briefly with the minister two things relating to tourism. Number one, a very unfortunate circumstance arose through the whole Nelson forest district, I believe, and I raised it in the House early this year: that was the closure of the recreational picnic sites operated by the forestry branch. I recognize that is another ministerial responsibility. I want to point out to the minister responsible for tourism the very adverse impact created as a result of tourists visiting isolated areas with the expectation that the camp would be open and available. I want the House to know I had letters from Calgary and from all over British Columbia stating disappointment and disenchantment, after having travelled all the way to Mica Creek, which is 86 miles north of Revelstoke, without any notice posted on the highway, only to find their fishing trip was undermined because of the closure of the campsite. At one point, I'm told, 44 recreational vehicles in the Mica area were parked on the highway. And, of course, refuse and so on was dumped because there was no available garbage disposal, and so on. I don't know whether this is something we have to look forward to on an annual basis, or whether it was a peculiar problem with budgeting this year in the Ministry of Forests branch.

I do want to tell you that it's very counterproductive when on the one hand, through our Ministry of Tourism, we are trying to sell to residents of Alberta and south of the border the proposition that they should come to beautiful British Columbia and enjoy the facilities and amenities available here. We're actively spending taxpayers' dollars to solicit and invite their visitations while, another department is eliminating facilities which would lure them here again in the future. That's completely at cross-purposes, and I think the minister could recognize that.

So my appeal to the minister is to please talk to the Minister of Forests. Please try and coordinate the tourist programs because that kind of thing, as he can appreciate, leaves a very very bad impression for a general area.

The other thing I would like to raise just briefly is a matter I've discussed in my particular area. I think the Minister of Lands. Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would probably be interested too. It relates to ski developments.

Quite a number of the ski hills in the Interior have encountered trouble over the past few years. There's been a short season, not too much snow and so on. There's quite a large capital investment involved in many of these developments. It seems to me that we have a rather unique opportunity to assist tourism as an all-season endeavour in British Columbia, particularly using the base of ski hills, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and all of these pursuits which we have these tremendous facilities for and beautiful scenery.

The thing that makes me feel that we have a bit of a unique opportunity is that we have a rail passenger service now under Via Rail. It's no longer under CP Rail or CN. This is a service devoted entirely to passenger train

[ Page 576 ]

operation. I think under those circumstances we would find a more amenable attitude by the operators of Via Rail to weekend excursions and that kind of thing.

One of the problems in winter travel, particularly in the Interior, is concern about the icy conditions of highways. We have an energy shortage. What better opportunity is there than to operate passenger train excursions to accommodate the winter facilities in the Okanagan and Revelstoke and the Columbia Valley and provide cheap and reliable transportation opportunities for our neighbours in Alberta, who I believe will patronize British Columbia if there is an attractive opportunity for them to do so?

I have discussed this proposal with a number of the ski hill operators in my particular area, and there is great interest in this kind of thing. I believe that the minister's department could do a first-class job in terms of selling this kind of approach in Alberta and possibly facilitating appeals from local developments to the Via Rail people to see whether or not there is the basis for this kind of cooperative development.

I think it's a fairly exciting proposition. I think it could really enhance British Columbia's opportunity as a year-round tourist opportunity and paradise for the people of Alberta and probably farther away too.

I would appreciate the minister's comment in that regard.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With regard to the picnic areas closing, the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Forests do work very closely together, and it's only when there is an extreme fire hazard or danger of fire that those areas are closed.

MR. KING: No, it was nothing to do with that. It was a budgetary problem.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Budgetary? I wasn't aware of that. But certainly if it was a budgetary problem, we'll take a look at it, because I can appreciate your comments. I was under the impression that it had been closed because of....

MR. KING: It should never have opened up, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. We'll certainly take a look at it. You have discussed it with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) as well?

MR. KING: Yes, it's opened now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate your comments with regard to skiing. As you know, one of our major thrusts under Economic Development and Tourism is to build up our ski plan. We're almost at capacity now, and the TIDS agreement.... Well, you know what's happening everywhere you go in the province. We've had a good budget for ski advertising in the U.S., Japan and in Canada. We are promoting, or will be promoting, ski train packages, the same as we do with the airlines. We want to be able to bring eastern skiers into British Columbia. The areas on the border now are accommodating the Alberta skiers, but we want to be able, by Via Rail, to bring them in. We have to go forward both ways at the same time, and we have to increase our number of skiers and our plan; and that's what we're trying to do. There are going to be some lopsided areas, too.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to raise some questions about tourism, and make a couple of proposals, if I may. The first proposal consists of asking the minister whether or not the department of tourism would be willing to commission a special study of the tourist potential of the E&N Railway on Vancouver Island. I ask that he commission a study to examine whether or not, through an increase of Via Rail services, and through connection with improved Via Rail services, enhancement of and additions to tourist facilities on Vancouver Island might be provided.

Let me make a very specific proposal. As well as asking the minister to conduct a study on the tourist value and potential of the E&N Railway, would he also consider putting on the E&N Railway our own Royal Hudson? One of the best decisions the previous administrations ever made — and all credit is due to Mr. Barrett, then the Premier — was to pay for and put back in service the Royal Hudson. It's been tremendously popular on the BCR. The people of Squamish love it. It takes thousands upon thousands of tourists. It's the equivalent of the Princess Marguerite, and it's been a total success, to the credit of your predecessor but one. She saw the worth of taking our Royal Hudson down to the United States and making a big fuss about it. To her credit also, she understood the tourist value of a shiny, steaming engine. Everyone loves it. Everyone comes to see it. Everyone understands what it means. A lot of people use it. It adds dollars; it adds excitement. It builds the potential; it restates the potential of a good tourist industry.

I would like to propose that we obtain for the summer, through the Ministry of Tourism, our own Royal Hudson on Vancouver Island. It would be tremendously popular, taking off first thing in the morning from downtown Victoria, gathering up all of the passengers who come through, say, at the convention centre — and I'll get to that in a moment — taking them up-Island, taking them to Courtenay, perhaps eventually taking them on to Alberni, where at the moment, of course, only freight service is provided, and not passenger. We have an example with the Royal Hudson itself that persuades us, surely, that the same exciting adventure could take place on the E&N.

This is the second request I make of the minister. Would you consider duplicating the great success of the Royal Hudson on the BCR track on the mainland here on Vancouver Island on the E&N track? I presume Via Rail would be willing to grant the running rights, to lease the track and to make equipment available in some fashion. I made some very tentative inquiries, and certainly there is no physical problem in getting a Royal Hudson across to the Island by barge. That's no real problem at all. The problem would be the equipment. Where do you find such a locomotive? It may well take some time. It took some time to find the Royal Hudson locomotive itself, but it was worth it. It was worth the investment, and succeeding governments have both recognized the wisdom of that initial investment. So too it would be here on Vancouver Island.

Think of the sight of it — a magnificent Royal Hudson-like train moving literally thousands of tourists up and down Vancouver Island in the June, July, August and, perhaps, September season. I freely agree it might not be appropriate at other times of the year; the Royal Hudson itself doesn't run year-round. But here too we have —

[ Page 577 ]

uniquely, vividly and visually — a means of connecting people with the only working railway on the Island, and connecting them through that railway with the rest of the tourist industry.

I'm the first to admit that local people like myself think about tourism on Vancouver Island as somehow restricted to greater Victoria. My colleagues from up-Island frequently tell me that's kind of blind, that it's pretty short-sighted. And they're right. Tourism here is often channelled and made exciting by coming to the capital city. It's a magnificent magnet, and we mustn't omit or overlook that. But once they're here, surely there can be put together some great ways of moving them up the rest of the Island.

How much brighter can you get than a shiny locomotive steaming its way up to Courtenay or around to Alberni? It worked on the mainland for the BCR. I hope the minister might consider giving it a chance here. Maybe the Royal Hudson itself could come over for a week or two, just to see what the draw would be. That may be one way to test it.

A third proposal that I would like to make to the minister is this. I mentioned it briefly before. It will shortly appear in written form and be presented to the Provincial Capital Commission and to the committee presently planning the convention centre in Victoria. It also has tourist value and tourist potential.

I would ask that the government consider a feasibility study that would look at the possibility of extending the E&N track four blocks down Wharf Street from Johnson, Pandora and Wharf, that intersection where it ends right now, to the intersection of Wharf and Fort. It's three and a half blocks away. What's the value of doing so? Well, it is this, in three parts.

First of all it would solve the problem of where to put a terminus for the E&N. The convention centre will have considerable parking. The convention centre's parking may well be augmented by additional facilities for those people who would eventually use the E&N as a commuter service from downtown Victoria to the western community. It would solve the problem for the E&N of how to find adequate parking at an appropriate site for its own service. That's the first possible result that a feasibility study might demonstrate.

Secondly, it would have the ability of enhancing enormously the convention centre itself. A train pulling up to the front door at a siding on Wharf Street allowing the tourists who come to the convention centre, whose business is over on a Saturday afternoon and who have Sunday to kill, would be a very exciting draw. They literally walk out the front door of the convention centre and they get on the train at nine in the morning. They go up Island and they come back at seven at night. They're back at the front door again.

As the minister knows, the E&N is basically only used twice a day. Once up and once down; that's it. There is no significant problem with competing traffic on that railway, unfortunately.

So the second value potentially of extending the track all of four blocks down Wharf Street would be to enhance the potential of the convention centre to make tourism succeed for the whole of the Island through this magnet called the convention centre.

The third potential value lies in this. It lies in creating, in the European sense of things, a focal point for the major activities in the transportation field in downtown Victoria. The Inner Harbour already, of course, is the site of the Coho, the Marguerite and two waterplane services. The convention centre will be, of course, a bus stop. At least one bus will run up and down Fort Street.

The roof of the convention centre might well be an appropriate place for a helipad. In the European sense of things, and the way in which all of those transportation activities come together at one site, surely it might be appropriate at least to take a look at having that as the Victoria terminus of the E&N Railway. At least take a look at it.

I'm informed that the cost of extending the rail down Wharf Street would be less, apparently, than roughly 5 percent of the total cost currently envisioned for the convention centre. As well, one could well appreciate that much of that money could come back from Via Rail itself. They have to build a new terminus somewhere. It's totally unsuccessful where it is. It undermines their own operation. They would obviously, I presume, be willing to invest to some extent.

I think that the Ministry of Tourism has a role in identifying, if it's there to be identified, the tourist potential of the E&N, to consider a Royal Hudson-like vehicle on the E&N, and to consider as well, through a competent feasibility study, the possibility of solving three problems at once by extending the E&N track four blocks down Wharf Street. Would the minister comment? In particular, I wonder if he would undertake at least to have a look at extending the track, at putting a Royal Hudson-like vehicle on the track running up and down Vancouver Island and, as well, at having a study of the general tourist potential of the E&N itself. I think those three things are worth some examination and some consideration, and I hope the minister is prepared to give it to them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we'll certainly take a look at all your suggestions.

MR. HANSON: I just have one small question of the minister. It relates to the computer and consulting charges. I realize that is further down in the votes, but we're moving back and forth. I think it would be appropriate to bring it up under this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, it would be appropriate. We've decided, I believe, to do both of the ministerial offices together, but the computer and consulting charge would be more appropriate under the specific vote.

MR. HANSON: However, I could raise it under the minister's vote. It's just a small....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. The House is in such a harmonious mood, I think it’s perhaps appropriate.

MR. HANSON: Much of the work that is done by the staff of the Economic Development ministry has to do with quantitative analysis and number-crunching and moving figures back and forth. I understand that a lot of the work, of course, is going to the B.C. Systems Corporation.

I also understand that the ministry is very unhappy with the work that they are getting done through the B.C. Systems Corporation, not through any fault of the staff there

[ Page 578 ]

but because they simply do not have enough bodies to handle the jobs.

Now my question is: in the $1,073,000 allocated for computer services, going back to 1978-79, I'd like to know how much is actually allocated to consultants and how much goes to B.C. Systems Corporation. My understanding is that if you want a job done, and you want it done fairly quickly, you either do it in-house, or you contract it out. Now I'd just like that clarified. What proportion of your computer budget is going out-of-house, and how much is going to B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's question, the whole $1,073,000 goes to B.C. Systems Corporation.

MR. HANSON: Thank you. Then where do the funds come from to pay consultants when jobs go outside the B.C. Systems Corporation? Does that come from the administration fund?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. If we commission a study, the computer services that have to be used for that particular study are in the consulting fees. You know, if we commission a study on something and we have a contract to do — an analysis or something — the computer fees that that consultant charges are right in the contract; it's not a separate deal.

MR. HANSON: So, as I understand it, the consultant may not be an employee of the B.C. Systems Corporation, but the payment is included in that amount of money. Is that correct?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the British Columbia Systems Corporation uses a consultant, it's in this $1 million. If we do an outside consultant study, their computer fees are in the charge for their services.

MS. SANFORD: I hope the minister is not going to get too confused, because we're jumping back and forth here. I want to support the comments made by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) with respect to the E&N, and to make a few comments of my own on that particular service.

I was pleased the minister asked me the other day about the E&N service on Vancouver Island, the time at which it leaves and returns to Victoria, and some questions about the trip itself. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister tonight, following his questions the other day, that, as Minister of Tourism, there really is a project he could undertake to ensure that not only the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism understands about the E&N service on Vancouver Island, but that the B.C. Ferry Corporation also does.

I have had correspondence from a person here in Victoria who makes a point of asking the information officers on board the B.C. ferries about the E&N service. Each time he travels on a ferry he goes to the tourist counsellor on board and says: "Is there a train on Vancouver Island? Could I travel on it?" Now what happens is that tourist counsellor has no knowledge of any train service on Vancouver Island. The Minister of Tourism, it seems to me, should ensure that tourist counsellors aboard the B.C. Ferries have that information.

The answers that this person gets are: "What train? A train on Vancouver Island? Well, there is a Via Rail service, but it's transcontinental and has nothing to do with Vancouver Island." These are the kinds of answers coming from your tourist counsellors aboard the B.C. Ferries.

I would also suggest to the minister that if in fact a Royal Hudson-type train is placed on the E&N service, it could be utilized in the wintertime as well. Train service of that type to the Courtenay area for skiers is something which was initiated a number of years ago, and should be resumed.

There is an increasing development of skiing facilities in the Courtenay area; a whole new ski development will be completed for this next season. I am hopeful the minister will consider obtaining some kind of additional service so that a ski-train can be initiated. Via Rail, I am disappointed to say, has not done its job in terms of advertising the E&N or making information available to people who wish to use it. They certainly have given no indication that they are interested in putting on a train which would increase the tourists up and down the Island, or take care of those skiers who like to flock to the Courtenay area to enjoy those facilities.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will certainly look into the counsellors on the ferry system. All of the Ministry of Tourism counsellors on the ferry system take that trip at the beginning of the season, but we'll certainly check that one out. Maybe it's an employee of the ferry system; we'll certainly check it out. As you know, I've been pretty bullish on Mount Washington and seeing that particular ski area up there go ahead. I haven't had a meeting with the E&N people or Via Rail people, but certainly we'll take a look at that. I think it's an excellent suggestion.

Vote 56 approved.

On vote 57: administration, $7,265,357.

MS. BROWN: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. In regard to this organization of the B.C. public service — the women's economic rights division — I couldn't find it on the flow chart for the Ministry of Economic Development. But I am assured that it is still there. I wonder if it fell off somewhere, and if it would be possible for the minister to tuck it in so that it will show up next time around. Would you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I told you I would provide you with the information, and we will take a look at it.

Vote 57 approved.

Vote 58: grants, $5,581,000 — approved.

Vote 59: federal — provincial shared-cost programs, $21,500,000 — approved.

Vote 60: building occupancy charges, $684,000 — approved.

Vote 61: computer and consulting charges, $1,073,000 — approved.

[ Page 579 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Vote 205: minister's office, $158,139 — approved.

Vote 206: general administration, $70,093 — approved

Vote 207: tourism, $10,327,237 — approved.

Vote 208: small business development, $1,487,015 — approved.

Vote 209: building occupancy charges, $422,000 — approved.

Vote 210: computer and consulting charges, $332,000 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.