[ Page 5871 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill PR403). Mr. Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 5873

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

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 126: minister's office –– 5873

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Leggatt

Division on an amendment

On vote 127: administration –– 5882

Mr. Leggatt

Division on an amendment

On vote 128: trade and industry division –– 5882

Mr. Leggatt

Division on an amendment

On vote 129: program implementation and coordination –– 5882

Mr. Leggatt

On the amendment to vote 129 –– 5882

Mr. Lea

Division on the amendment

On vote 130: small business services –– 5883

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. King

Mr. Leggatt

On vote 131: grants –– 5885

Mr. Levi

Mr. Skelly

On vote 132: northeast coal development  –– 5885

Mr. Howard

On vote 133: British Columbia Railway debt servicing –– 5886

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Howard

Mr. Kempf

On vote 135: building and occupancy charges — 5887

Mr. Leggatt

Division on an amendment

On vote 136: computer and consulting charges –– 5887

Mr. Leggatt

Division on an amendment

FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, may I modestly say that one of North America's greatest winter events is Prince George snow-golf. This morning I'm pleased to introduce a character who helps us enjoy snow-golf and many other community events. Would the House please welcome Prince George's snow-bear.

MR. MUSSALLEM: At this time I should bring to the House's attention that I'm delighted to see the snow-bear there, but in truth this is what has formerly been called the sasquatch. You recall my bill that requested this House to protect it in case it was a human species. It's obviously a human species, Look at it up there — so tender, so quiet and so kind. I think the House should recognize the fact that at last the sasquatch has come to being.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I don't think we should use introduction period to lobby for a bill.

MR. REE: I don't know if they're in the gallery this morning yet — because I haven't had an opportunity to find out — but we have the pleasure of 50 students from Canyon Heights Elementary School in North Vancouver in the precincts. These students probably rose about 5 o'clock this morning to visit the capital. They're under the guidance of a teacher, Mr. Hoadley. I'd ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and to the assembly this morning.

MR. BARBER: Shortly in the buildings is Randall Weiss, a graduate student of the school of music at the University of Victoria who took his masters in performance. On Sunday he will be playing the Mozart violin concerto number 3 at the concert to which all MLAs are invited courtesy of the notice on your desk. Also in the buildings later on will be Dr. Martin Levin, the chairman of the Greater Victoria School Board and the chairman of the restoration committee at Victoria's synagogue, the oldest in western Canada, for which the concert will be a benefit. I ask the House to make Dr. Levin and Mr. Weiss welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing a group of students from Central Fraser Valley to the House. They are from the Godson Elementary School of Abbotsford. With them are: the vice-principal, Mr. Anderson; teachers, Mrs. Coutu, Mr. Holtby and Ms. Pickford; and parents, Mrs. Rille and Mrs. Wiebe. I understand that their plans were to stay in a school last night, but because of the CUPE strike they had to go to a church. I'd like to thank those at the church who put them up last night. Would the House please welcome those students.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all members to bid a cordial welcome to an individual who doesn't really have to be restored and is well known to all members of this assembly, Mr. Bill Clancey.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in your precincts today are Dr. Robert Marsh and eight students from Boise State University in Idaho. Dr. Marsh is with the criminal justice administration department of that university. He is visiting Vancouver and Victoria with his students to study the Canadian jurisdiction. He has been visiting with officials of my ministry. I wish the members to welcome him.

MR. KEMPF: In the galleries this morning are two very hard-working ladies representing Social Credit in Victoria. They are Mary Martin and Sharon Jackson. I'd like this House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. On May 21 the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) presented a petition. In presenting that petition, he said: "I have a petition from the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Western Canadian Wilderness Society. It's signed by 14,000 residents." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he misled the House when he made the statement that the petition had been signed by 14,000 residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The 1980 population of the Queen Charlotte Islands was 5,559. The petition that he presented was signed by about 300 residents of the Queen Charlottes, not 14,000. The bulk of those signatures were acquired through shopping malls in Vancouver. I think the member should apologize for having misled this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a matter of privilege is usually attended by a motion in which the member suggests what action he wishes the House to take. Is that motion available? If not, the matter will be dropped.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't think it's severe enough for a motion. The member has misled the House previously, and I think in all fairness he should apologize in this instance...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...having been caught out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In the absence of the necessary motion, the matter drops.

MR. SKELLY: On the same point of privilege....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, there's no debate.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The matter of privilege has been dropped.

MR. SKELLY: On a new point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter.

MR. SKELLY: The previous speaker, in suggesting....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is reflecting on a matter which has been dropped.

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm just reflecting on a statement made in advancing a point of privilege.

[ Page 5872 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I see no way in which the member can seek the floor.

MR. SKELLY: I ask that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing withdraw the statement that the member for Atlin misled this House...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: ...when in his own remarks, Mr. Speaker, he did say that the petition also represented members of the Western Canadian Wilderness Society. I believe there's an effort on the part of the government to undermine the credibility...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: ...of certain members of this House, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: ...by making misleading statements about what they say in this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The standing orders provide that members can obtain possession of the floor and address the assembled members, but only in an orderly fashion. Just because a members stands in his place, suggesting that he may wish to speak, does not give him the right to obtain the use of the floor. Therefore, hon. members, I recommend that we adhere to the standing orders that have been established over the years.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order. Please state the point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: The point of order is that members are to use temperate language in the House. It has always been considered a very serious breach to accuse another member of misleading. I know that the way in which the matter was brought to the Chair was as a question of privilege, which is a very important matter. I am sure that Mr. Speaker was concentrating on whether or not there was a prima facie case being established, but in presenting the case the member did say that another member had misled the House. We're all only human and we can concentrate on just so many things at one time. I ask Mr. Speaker: should he — or Mr. Chairman, should such a circumstance occur — not call for immediate withdrawal of such an accusation?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members — and would the members allow me just a few seconds to do what the Chair should never do, and that is to try to teach the rules; I think all members know the rules, but in order to remind them — in the normal course of debate it is unparliamentary to suggest that another member is deliberately misleading the House, that he is lying to the House or that he is making misrepresentations to the House. Do I have the attention of all members? Because I'm sure this may arise again. If at any time it is perceived by one individual or one member of the House that in actual fact this is the case and that there is misrepresentation to the House, then it becomes a matter of privilege, particularly if that misrepresentation affects any member's right to represent his constituency properly in this House.

If that is perceived to be the case, the only way it can be dealt with is on a motion — a motion which is brought to the attention of the House by a member standing in his place and saying he has a matter of privilege. However, in the absence of such a motion, that matter falls. The member, having just raised such a matter of privilege a little earlier today, either did not know that the motion must attend the matter of privilege, or he did not choose to bring that motion forward. In such an instance it is the responsibility of the Chair to remind the members that a motion is necessary and, in its absence, the matter drops. Does that answer the question raised by the member for Nelson-Creston?

MR. NICOLSON: It appears that the member, who has been in this House longer than I, should have known that a motion was required. He has sought to do by one means something he is expressly forbidden to do by another.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, when he was outlining his alleged point of privilege, said that the hon. member for Atlin had misled the House. I would ask that the Speaker ask the hon. minister to withdraw that remark unconditionally, as it was not the subject matter of a privilege motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in response to the first member for Vancouver Centre, the Chair is not aware of any device by which the matter he brings forward can be canvassed or brought to the conclusion he seeks in this particular instance. But the Chair will undertake to review what seems to be a rather novel instance in this House, and will bring a statement to the House at some future time.

MR. LAUK: When taking the matter under review, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the implications. Hon. members on this side of the House may have occasion to raise points of privilege too. They may use language that would otherwise be unparliamentary or accusatory, or impugn the motives of other members of the House. What works for one side, Mr. Speaker, works for the other. It would be incumbent upon the Chair, I say with great respect, to find some way to avoid that most unfortunate acceleration of bad behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER: It may well be that the Chair would find in its deliberations that it may be a matter which should be considered by the committee on standing orders.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, in Your Honour's considering the subject matter I wonder if Your Honour would mind looking at the fifth edition of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, which has been cited many times in this House. At page 105 under subparagraph (2) of citation 320 it says: "Since 1958 it has been ruled unparliamentary to use

[ Page 5873 ]

the following expressions," and it cites a number of expressions. On pages 108 and 109, under the heading "Mislead," there are four citations: "deliberately misleading," "deliberately misled," "wilfully misled" and "misleading the public." I draw your attention to the specific word "mislead," which has been ruled unparliamentary in four separate instances. If Beauchesne is to mean anything, it should surely apply to that minister as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will consider the statements and also the citation suggested by the hon. member. However, I would remind him that the instance with which we are dealing today has to do with a matter of privilege in which it was perceived by another member that what he was accusing the member of actually took place; but in the absence of a motion we could proceed no further.

MR. HOWARD: You won't get away with it, Jim.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He did mislead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, now that we are no longer on a matter of privilege, to please withdraw the words: "He did mislead." Would the hon. minister please assist the Chair?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, my words stand on the point of privilege, but in this instance I'll withdraw.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter.

MR. PASSARELL: The motion states that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, Mr. Chabot, has misled this House by imputing that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) presented an erroneous petition. This is totally false, since the Canadian Wilderness Society is a provincial organization.

The record of the day, Hansard, May 21, 1981, states: "MR. PASSARELL: I have a petition from the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Western Canadian Wilderness Society." The total lack of ignorance of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PASSARELL: He has stated that the Western Canadian Wilderness Society is from the Queen Charlotte Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. In stating the matter of privilege the matter itself needs to be stated, and then it needs to be considered as to whether or not a prima facie case does exist. It is not the time now for debate on the matter of privilege. The matter has been received and stated, the attendant motion is in my hand and I will reserve decision on the matter and bring back a decision to the House.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill PR403, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 126: minister's office, $204, 312.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say at the outset that we don't even have to attempt to undermine the opposition's credibility. They're doing it themselves; as a matter of fact, they are doing a very nice job of it.

I want to outline for the House this morning a fact which the NDP socialist opposition seem to be perpetuating; that is, that the province of Alberta collects $9 per tonne royalty on coal. This has been stated on several occasions by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), even though he knows it's totally false. The opposition would try to mislead the....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the minister has clearly impugned the motives of the Leader of the Opposition by twisting the words that the Leader of the Opposition used in relation to this matter. I ask the minister to withdraw the words "it was totally false" and "he misled the House."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I concur, although I'll have to advise the first member for Vancouver Centre that in fact the statement he made could be considered unparliamentary. Statements like "twisted the facts" are also considered unparliamentary. I will ask the hon. minister: if he has imputed any improper motive to another hon. member, will he please withdraw.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will once again cite from Beauchesne a statement that was read yesterday: "On rare occasions the House may have to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident, but we cannot impute intentional falsehood to another member of the House."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll just state the facts, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition has gone around the province on several occasions and said that Alberta collects a royalty of $9 a tonne, while the province of British Columbia only collects $1.50 a tonne.

MR. LAUK: Do you have a citation there?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give you the citation! Are you denying it? On behalf of your leader are you saying that he didn't say this? If so, stand up and say so. I've heard it on several occasions.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, now we're denying, Mr. Chairman, and saying that the leader didn't say that. Is that your policy or not? What are you saying, my friend? Are you trying to protect your leader? I'm saying he said it, my friend.

[ Page 5874 ]

MR. LAUK: You get support for your statements.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I heard him say it on several occasions.

MR. LAUK: Where? When? Name one!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you denying that he said it?

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. Would the member please take his chair? Remember, friends, that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. In committee all members are allowed to debate the vote before us as many times as they wish. The only restriction is the 30-minute time limit in debate and committee. I'm sure all hon. members who wish to enter into this debate will do so as the debate proceeds.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the NDP put out a critique of the.... I'll stand by my statement that indeed the Leader of the Opposition has said on several occasions that the Alberta government collects a $9 per tonne royalty. Mr. Chairman, let me explain to you that if the opposition wish to deny that fact, then we'll let the truth flow. But the opposition did a little critique of northeast coal. What do they say, basically? They say that British Columbia coal royalties are too low, significantly less than Alberta, and we'll be held down because of marginal northeast coal British Columbia production.

I know the opposition never want to listen to the facts, but there was a study done recently for Utah Development Co. in Australia. They did a comparative analysis of tax and other government charges on coal mining operations in six countries. That study is dated September 18, 1980. The study was done at the request of Utah Development Co., a U.S. company which conducts all of its operations in Australia.

Coopers and Lybrand conducted a study comparing the tax and other government charge on coal mining operations in Australia and five other countries. The purpose of that study was to determine how the tax and other government charges imposed by Australia compare with similar charges in other coal-mining countries. The NDP would like to pick one specific item — the royalty. They don't seem to take the whole picture into view, which of course they never have and never will.

MR. LAUK: Let's see you try. Let's hear about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you be quiet? You'll have your opportunity. What do they call you? Smaller counsel — or junior counsel I guess it is — the third or fourth member for Victoria Centre. Yes, he's been named by his colleagues as being "small counsel." He's always yapping over there. He's the fellow who announced northeast coal with such gusto and a blare of trumpets and red carpets in December 1975. He said: "Oh, the NDP are going to develop northeast coal. I'm going to tell you that we're going to build roads, and we're going to build everything."

He came out before the election in 1975, that little fellow, and tried to gain votes from the people in the north by saying: "Oh, indeed, northeast coal is going to go ahead." No studies; no nothing. He was trying to entice the people of the northern part of this province who have more brains, thank heavens, than to vote for the NDP. But they weren't taken in by that little junior counsel member's announcement of northeast coal going ahead. He wanted the deal to go ahead. He tried desperately to put it together when he was Minister of Economic Development, but he couldn't get it off the ground because he left all the buyers who came here from numerous and sundry countries cooling their heels in hotel rooms during a rainstorm. He didn't want to sell coal; or at least he didn't know how to sell coal. Then, shortly after the election, that member over there said: "Oh, you can forget northeast coal. It's ten years down the road since Phillips went to Japan and he came back empty-handed. He didn't sell anything." But that's typical of that member, so I don't really pay much attention to what he says. Most of what he says is very airy-fairy, to say the least. I could use other words, but it would be termed unparliamentary in this precinct.

I would like to put on the record, once and for all — although I realize the socialists opposite will never believe it — the study that was done in all the countries of the world.

"The countries that were selected for comparison in the study were those having the most significant proven coal reserves in which U.S. companies would be permitted to operate in some manner and, if possible, in which open-pit coal mining could be conducted. The countries selected on the basis of those standards were Canada, Indonesia, South Africa, the United States, West Germany and, of course, Australia. These countries account for about 35 percent of world coal production and more than 90 percent of coal production outside the communist block. Since the company operates in Queensland, the Australian operations in the study were placed in that state."

I hope the little first member for Vancouver Centre is listening. But he never listens to facts. He deals strictly in fiction anyway, so I guess I shouldn't expect anything more of him this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the hon. minister that personal allusions to another member of the House are unparliamentary.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw any personal allusion. I was talking about his policies. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I certainly wouldn't allude to any personal allusions just his policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got lots of illusions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, he certainly has lots of illusions.

" In order to broaden the comparability among the various countries, the analysis of coal operations was extended to cover two provinces in Canada — of Alberta and British Columbia — and three states in the United States: Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. For purposes of the comparison of results among the six countries in the study, however, British Columbia and Kentucky were selected as the most 'representative' province and state in each of the two countries respectively."

[ Page 5875 ]

What I want to say is that what the study was to determine was the government's share of income, which I shall refer to after this as GSI. Government share of income was chosen as the general description of all taxes and government charges imposed by either the federal or state government in each of the six countries in the study. The general share of income was broken down into 17 categories of taxes and charges, so that we're looking at the total picture and not just one little narrow segment.

MR. LAUK: Are you reading the phone book?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I were, it would be factual. If you were reading it, I'd have some doubt. The little second member for Vancouver Centre opposite — the junior counsel of the NDP — is making light, and laughing and giggling on a very serious matter, because it involves returns to the taxpayers of British Columbia. He always takes matters of concern to the taxpayers of British Columbia with a grain of salt.

I would like to carry on, Mr. Chairman, because this is very important. I wish the second member for Vancouver Centre would not keep interrupting me, and would obey the rules of the House.

"The factual assumptions of all countries in the study are based on Utah Development Company's 1979 coal-mining operations in Queensland, Australia. Notwithstanding, it was deemed necessary in the report to describe these factual assumptions in detail and also to vary some of them so as to minimize any distortions in comparability between the countries. The assumptions were used to illustrate the performance of a single ongoing mining operation to determine the percentage of GSI as related to income before the GSI for a mid-life year of the operation. Some of the more significant assumptions in the study include the form or organization used in each country, the capitalization of the enterprise, the annual distribution of after-tax profits, the use of 'book taxable income' as a basis for the tax," and so forth.

The conclusions — and in making these conclusions....

MR. LAUK: I know that the minister desperately wanted me to get up and make this point of order, because that's what he was leading up to. For the sake of the committee and good debate, I think that standing orders should be followed and the minister should not be reading from a report. If there is some measure of importance in what the minister is reading, it should be tabled with the House when appropriate so all members can read it at their leisure. But at this stage it's against standing orders to read extensively from reports or speeches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a good point. Let me cite Beauchesne, who says that we may refer to notes when we are discussing technical matters or statistics. That's about the only advice I can offer the committee at this point. If the member wishes to refer to notes from time to time, that's perfectly parliamentary. However, the point raised by the first member for Vancouver Centre is well taken.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the point made by the first member for Vancouver Centre, because he doesn't want to know the facts. The facts will prove that he and his party have been stating....

MR. LAUK: Send me the report.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll read what's in the report and I'll quote from the report, my friend, and you will listen to the facts. If you don't care to listen to the facts, there's the door. Okay? Do we understand each other?

MR. LAUK: Are you interfering with my privileges as a member?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, but you're trying to interfere with my rights as a member.

MRS. WALLACE: What happened to Doug Heal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the no-growth member from the Cowichan Valley.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to return to vote 126, address the Chair and speak in terms that are relevant to the vote before us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, if taxation on coal is not relevant to this debate, why, I had better go out and relearn the rules, because I understood that the debate is about coal.

MR. LAUK: If you're going to defy the Chair, I've had it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not defying the Chair. There goes the first member for Vancouver Centre. He's leaving the Legislature because he doesn't want to hear the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 126, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the coal mined in Australia is very close to tidewater. Coal-mines in Canada are about three times as far from tidewater as they are in Australia. Australia takes a greater percentage as the government's share of income than any other country. I could give you a lot more information on that, but the point I want to make is that the report really states that the government's share in Alberta is 49.9 percent. In other words, of the total profits made by the coal-mining industry in Alberta, the government takes 49.9 percent. In the province of British Columbia the government's share of income from a coal-mining operation is 63.7 percent. In other words, in Alberta the government's share of income is 13 percent lower than in the province of British Columbia.

My point is that the NDP socialist opposition in their critique have said that British Columbia royalties are too low — significantly lower than Alberta. I have a little difficulty dealing with this because one of the points they're trying to make in the critique they did on northeast coal — and it's stated emphatically — is that the province of British Columbia receives less income from coal-mining than does the province of Alberta. That is not true. We collect from the coal-mining industry and take as the government share of income 13 percent more than they do in the province of Alberta. I don't know how to deal with this.

[ Page 5876 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us the tax base.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have already given you the percentage figures, my friend.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members will be allowed to debate the vote.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That member over there is dumber than I'd ever thought a member of this House could be. He just doesn't understand. Honestly!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll have to ask the minister to withdraw. That remark is unparliamentary.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I withdraw. He doesn't comprehend the facts, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the minister will address the Chair and if the minister will be allowed to debate uninterrupted, then the committee can proceed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that I've made my point. When the opposition say that we're trying to undermine their credibility, I'm saying that we don't have to try to undermine their credibility; they're doing a very nice job all by themselves. They're undermining their own credibility by going around and.... I remember a few years ago they said that the two-river policy was going to break the province of British Columbia and put on an imposition of some $500 per person.

You know, historically the NDP socialist party has been against anything that has ever been good for the province of British Columbia. But they are for airy-fairy deals, like building a $2 billion railroad to Alaska — a railroad that was going to start nowhere and haul products from a foreign country, with no possible recovery. When we come out with something very positive, like building a branch line, not only into a very resource-rich area but also with contracts up front and cost recovery, they're against it. So I guess, Mr. Chairman, I just have to let our record stand against theirs, and we'll see who the winner is.

MR. LAUK: I do apologize to the Chair and the committee for interrupting the hon. minister. It's just that we've been sparring for so many years and we admire each other so much, sometimes we think that we're in a room alone together battling it out. But I think that some of the things that the minister said in the last two or three days cannot go unanswered. I'm the former minister of economic development, as the current minister likes to point out on frequent occasions — I don't know why; I think he likes the word "former" — but I have not spoken out definitively on northeast coal and the new project proposal for the last several months, and I think it may be appropriate on this occasion in the committee to do so. I'll be very brief; it'll take less than 10 or 12 minutes to say some of the things I want to say about it.

I do think, however, that the minister's accusation, and the accusations made more recently during the by-election in Kamloops and since, have been somewhat unfair in accusing the opposition of being negative, in saying that they're going to take a positive approach, that we're never for anything, that we're always against every proposal. I think it's unfair, I don't think it's substantiated by the facts and I think it should be refuted here and now.

Before doing so, I'd like to congratulate the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) — if I can have his attention for a moment — extend my personal regards and welcome him to one of the most exclusive clubs in the province. It's a great distinction, and the population at large are the people who choose those of us who sit in this chamber — for whatever reasons. I notice that the hon. member is sitting beside the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). Now that's not the member for Kamloops' fault, I realize that. He doesn't choose where he sits. But, Mr. Chairman, he does choose who he may listen to, and I noticed that yesterday, when the member for Central Fraser Valley was providing advice in his left ear, the hon. member for Kamloops was smiling. When the same occurred today, I noticed that he was smiling somewhat less. I think as the days go on you'll find that there are other people in the chamber who could provide advice as well.

Back to the vote. The accusation of the minister is an interesting one. He says that the Social Credit government have put forward positive policies and that the negative opposition — the wrecking crew — have torn them down every time. He uses that as an example of our critique of the northeast coal project. In Elmer Gantry style he says, "Are you for it or against it?" You can't be in the middle, you can't ask questions, you can't find out where the tax dollars are going, because if you do you're agin it, you're a wrecking crew, and you're negative.

Let me tell you about that member in opposition and about him as the minister in his present portfolio since they formed a government in 1975. Talk about a wrecking crew and a negative government! When that hon. member for South Peace River was in the opposition....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's got nothing to do with this vote.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure all members of the committee will relate their debate to the vote.

MR. LAUK: I remember when that member was in opposition when we proposed the Land Commission Act....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I wonder what my being in opposition has to do with the vote today. I think we should try to confine the remarks in the Legislature to the vote at hand. Isn't that the rule of the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point is well taken. We are reminded that in Committee of Supply it is our duty first of all to be relevant, and secondly to debate the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I assure you that the Chair is doing its best to maintain order in the committee without bias. I ask the member and all members of the committee to relate to the vote before us.

[ Page 5877 ]

MR. LAUK: During his remarks — not only today but on other days — the minister has made comments about the former administration that cannot go unanswered, because they relate to the position taken by the opposition on several important matters, not the least of which is the northeast coal project, which is under the present administration of the minister. I was saying that when that member was in opposition and a proposal came down from the then Premier to develop Sukunka coal on a co-adventure basis to bring jobs, wealth, roads, railways, highways, schools and hospitals to the good people of the north in Chetwynd, with Dawson Creek serving as a nerve centre and supply centre for the great production that was to occur, what position did the hon. member for South Peace River take? He was a carping critic of the government. He stood day after day in this chamber and attacked and attacked because he was jealous and envious that the NDP administration was finally doing what the Social Credit administration had miserably failed to do for 20 years.

Time after time when projects were proposed by the NDP administration he was a negative person. He stood up in this House and opposed the Land Commission Act, Railwest, Dease Lake, the oil refinery, the steel mill, shipbuilding and all of it. He opposed Can-Cel and Kootenay Forest Products, which became the foundation stone of that disaster they created called BCRIC. And he's calling us negative. Then they formed a government, and what happened? The only opportunity in British Columbia to take a piece of the action in secondary industry was through the establishment of Railwest, and he shut it down. Why? Not because it's uneconomic, not because we didn't need railcars both here and in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, but because it was established by the NDP. What a petty, inflexible doctrinaire attitude that is!

These people are captured and confined in the coffin of their doctrinaire ideology. They can't escape. They are chained with chains fashioned by themselves over the years: ideological chains. They are doctrinaire, right-wing, capitalist zealots. Because they cannot see anything that the NDP has done as having any benefit whatsoever for the province, they shut down Railwest.

What happened with the steel mill? We signed an agreement with NKK, a major steel company that buys coal and that's the major customer for the northeast coal project, to build a steel mill in this province that, hopefully, would use some of the metallurgical coal here in the province of British Columbia, provide jobs, and use the resources of this province for the people of this province so that we could benefit from it. What did he do? He went to Japan. He came back and he cancelled the steel mill project. It took years before he came up with some sort of answer for northeast coal — years after the event. It took him two years just to find his phone in his office.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you'd left the files I could have found them.

MR. LAUK: You couldn't read them if you found them, Mr. Minister.

What about shipbuilding in the province? I used to go to that minister, and I'd say: "Keep the steel mill." He'd say: "What do we use the steel for if we have a steel mill?" I'd say: "To build ships." One day he'd say: "We need something to use the steel for." So I'd go away, figure something out and come back and say: "Well. how about a shipbuilding industry?" And he'd say: "No, we can't have a shipbuilding industry in this province; we haven't got a reasonably priced supply of steel." The catch-22 minister. He has no imagination.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have a great deal of difficulty, Mr. Chairman, recalling the conversation that the member opposite is referring to. Not only did he not converse with me, but when he left office he took his files home to his basement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order, hon. member. In committee you will be allowed ample opportunity to debate evidence that has been brought to the committee when you have your turn to speak.

MR. LAUK: No shipbuilding industry. What about the procedures that were underway under the New Democratic Party administration to build an oil refinery in this province? It would have done several things, one of which would have brought jobs to the province of British Columbia; the second would have given us an opportunity to compare the prices of oil manufactured by the Crown corporation with that manufactured by the multinational American corporations to see whether the prices were fair. They didn't want to do that for the benefit of their own people in this province, but, boy, they'll break their neck rushing to the defence of the multinational American oil companies, which don't pay taxes. They pour money out of this country, despite their argument that they're spending money on exploration. Nonsense! They're spending a pittance on exploration, compared to what they've taken out of this country.

What did they do with Can-Cel and Kootenay Forest Products? I don't hear them saying that that was a bad deal. They wouldn't have the nerve to say that. They used it as the foundation stone for BCRIC. When the people of the province of British Columbia, who were given BCRIC shares, were asked to buy BCRIC shares. they were buying back what they already owned. But the Premier of this province and that minister said: "We're here to teach you a lesson. We want to teach you a lesson about the marketplace." No, not just the marketplace, the stock exchange, which the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) described as "that great casino in the sky." He loves it. Did you see the way he looked when he held his hands up and looked skyward and said: "The sacred right of the stock exchange?" The penny stock, Mr. Chairman. The sacred right to profit. There's a difference between profit, or a fair return on the one hand, and downright thievery on the other hand — downright highway robbery.

The people of the province of British Columbia learned their lesson carefully. Who won from BCRIC shares? Were they the ordinary people who held these shares, who had mortgaged their homes and sold their cars to buy BCRIC shares? No, it was the people on the inside, the people in the boardrooms, the friends of government, the friends of boards of directors who knew the inside information so that they could come at the appropriate time and loot the BCRIC treasury and loot the people's profits. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of this province did take a lesson from the Premier and the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Busi-

[ Page 5878 ]

ness Development. They've learned it very well. They're going to take that lesson to the ballot box in the next general election.

I realize that there's a euphoria over there because of the return of a Social Credit member for Kamloops. We congratulate them; we honour the democratic system and the parliamentary process — enjoy it while you can.

We ask for this northeast coal project. Yes, I announced it in November 1975; yes, the Premier of the day announced the Sukunka coal project and, yes, we had a project to go ahead with. Let me tell you that if the New Democratic Party was still in office....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: If the New Democratic Party was still in office today, that project would be a good deal for the province of British Columbia, and the tax money that would have been invested in that project would be on an equity basis, not on a subsidy basis. We argue for equity, not subsidy. We don't believe in taking the taxpayers' money and throwing it down a hole that gets wider and wider. We don't believe in chaining up the BCR, never making it possible for it to be a financially productive railway and using it like a whipping-boy to be the conduit through which the taxpayers are losing their money year after year because of the ineptitude of this government, their lack of imagination and their procrastination. We have lost opportunity after opportunity because of the incompetence of that administration, and that incompetence has been led very ably by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. We say: equity, not subsidy.

They say incentive, Mr. Chairman. What about the people on welfare who want to get off welfare? What kind of an incentive do we get from this government? The federal government suggested to people on welfare: "If you're a single welfare recipient you can try and find part-time employment to better yourself. But you can only make $50 a month. If you make anything more we'll take it off your welfare cheque." Do you want to draw an analogy? "If you're married, $100." The federal government comes along and says: "Let's raise that to at least $75 and $150, to put it in modern terms." The government over there says: "No. Those kinds of incentives to ordinary folks don't work, . But we're going to give $1 billion to private industry, because with them it works." If they were a bit more generous with their own people — they're your people as well as ours — in terms of incentives, we'd have a better society in this province, and we'd have a better government over there.

What we have is a wholesale giveaway. A lot of that money that's being used on the northeast coal project should be used to buy gift-wrap paper and ribbon, and the minister should gift-wrap each piece of the coal himself, because it's a gift to the Japanese steelmaker. He says: "If the NDP was in government, they'd want to give the whole of the northeast coal to Ottawa." This government is in power and it's giving our coal away to Tokyo. That seems to be all right to them; that seems to be just fine.

It's significant that the Rube Band was in town yesterday. I haven't seen such a bunch of rubes sitting over on that side of the House in my lifetime.

We say: equity, not subsidies. We say: don't give away taxpayers' money for a lousy deal, badly negotiated. That poor little minister, whom I'm very fond of, but who is in a position far beyond his capacity, has got us all skinned. We've been taken to the cleaners and sheared clean. The hon. minister can run a car dealership but he doesn't understand economics. He doesn't understand that you don't, on the one hand, consider private money to be sacrosanct and, on the other, consider taxpayers' money to be available just to be squandered. The deal is profligate in the sense that the taxpayers' money is going down the drain. A return on the investment in 10 or 15 years of $1.5 billion total, he says. What a joke! Take the $1 billion and put it in the bank now and you'll get a better return than that. You won't even have to bother with the project; and then hand out the profits on welfare. You're about as smart a businessman as I've ever seen. Very clever stuff. Gee, a $1.5 billion return. Isn't that great — over the next 20 years, is it?

In 1976 they said the northeast coal project was fine. "If we start working on it now, it'll take ten years to come on stream. In 1986 we may start shovelling out the first tonne of coal." I wasn't wrong about that projection. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I was sure wrong in believing that it was possible for this government to get a good deal. We had a good deal going. We could have a good deal. I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman. A good deal does not mean giving away the whole store. We'd sooner have no deal at all than give away the whole store. You've got to have patience, be clever and know when to move. This minister has lost more coal deals in the history of his administration than he's ever gotten for the province of British Columbia. He knows it. That's why he's embarrassed and that's why he always laughs nervously when I point that out to him. He knows he's guilty of incompetence.

I say that it's really strange that we're such a negative opposition. We built Railwest. We established the Vancouver Resources Board. We had steel mill projects going. We had shipbuilding planned. We had the oil refinery underway. We had Can-Cel. We had Kootenay. We had the Afton copper smelter. We had things moving in this province like they've never moved before. This government came to power and shut most of them down. Now they have the nerve to stand up here and say we're the wrecking crew, we're the negative ones.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. In 1976 when this government moved into the capital as government, a black cloud moved into the capital and it hasn't moved since. The only desperate political deal they can put together is a sellout with no return to the tax payers. They should be ashamed of themselves.

They want to know what our position is. Our position is precisely as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has said: you get an equity position in the coal deal and we'll be all for it. There's no problem there. We're for northeast coal production. We don't buy the arguments that we can't proceed right away. We support the idea of the northeast coal project, but we want a better deal. It might be better if some other minister was in charge. I regret to say this because of my personal feeling for that honourable gentleman, but I believe that the deal he has put together is so bungled and incompetent — it skins alive the taxpayers of British Columbia — that some other minister should be put in charge of that project.

[ Page 5879 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I'll remind the committee, as I have already reminded the minister, that personal allusions to another member are quite unparliamentary. I'm sure the committee is well aware of that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, that was quite an amusing performance by.... Oh, he's gone. Where did he go? To look for his files maybe. You know, Mr. Chairman, when he left office and I took over, I went into the office and all the files were gone. The minister had taken his files and hid them in his basement. But they were mostly empty anyway.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, he's talking about what a great Minister of Economic Development he was when he held this position. He can talk about all the airy-fairy things in the world, but the fact of the matter is that unemployment was high, people were leaving the province, no investment was coming in, the mining industry had been driven out and they were going and seeking jobs in other countries.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There appear to be interruptions that might be imputing false motive to the minister. I would caution members to avoid that type of criticism and, of course, not to heckle in the first place. That's unparliamentary as well.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I say, it was an amusing performance, because the fact of the matter is that in 1975 the mining industry had left the province or was leaving. They were going to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Australia and every other country in the world, because that minister had done such a good job of driving them out. He certainly did a fantastic job of driving out the mining industry. With regard to the petroleum industry, they created a lot of ghost towns up north. He did such a fantastic job. I guess he must have been working in concert with the Minister of Energy at the time, because the petroleum industry was certainly leaving the province like flies. There was practically no investment in the lumber industry. Those are the facts, and I guess the facts will speak for themselves. The cut-and-run member, Mr. Chairman, made a statement and he left the House; he ran because he doesn't want to hear the facts. I feet sorry for that the first member for Vancouver Centre, who at one time was Minister of Economic Development, because they did not have a deal in northeast coal — it was just a political gimmick to try and pick up a few votes when they were desperately trying to get the people of this province to re-elect them in 1975. They didn't have a deal, they didn't have a deal, they didn't have a deal — it was a political gimmick. While the member was Minister of Economic Development, as I say, coal buyers were coming to British Columbia, and he'd leave them to cool their heels.

But it's interesting to see what the first member for Vancouver Centre said in March of 1979 when he was talking to a reporter from B.C. Business Magazine. I'm just bringing it up because it's really more of a joke than anything else; I thought the House might be interested in a little levity this morning, Mr. Chairman. This is the first member for Vancouver Centre being interviewed by B.C. Business Magazine, and he's talking about what's happening in economic development. The ex-Minister of Economic Development said: "Well, since 1975 three inches of dust have settled upon the policy planning branch of the Department of Economic Development." That's typical of the way he thinks. Economic activity was coming, and we had formed new economic development incentives — new forestry, fishing, oil and coal policy — and he said: "Oh, three inches of dust have settled on the policy planning branch." That's the first member for Vancouver Centre talking in 1979. I guess that must have been just before the 1979 election. He said: "Oh, they're working in research and doing what they've always done, except that none of their plans seem to be impressed upon the government that we have — none of them have been carried through — so much so that Don Phillips went over to Japan and lost tremendous opportunities to increase our export of metallurgical coal to steel mills in Japan." "He lost them," he says!

The amazing part of it is, Mr. Chairman, that after the 1973 OPEC crisis, when there was an energy crisis and shortage and oil prices shot sky-high, giving the government of the day a tremendous opportunity to get investment in further research and exploration for oil and gas, what did they do — at a time when it was right there on a platter? They drove the petroleum industry out of British Columbia. Also at that time when they were in office there were huge new coal contracts signed with Australia, the United States and other countries. Did they sell any coal? No, they didn't sell any coal, and that's why it's so ironic that in 1975, just a few days before the election, the first member for Vancouver Centre would come out and say: "Oh, we've got a great deal; we're going to...." And the deal they were trying to put together was a little development on one mine. They would have had to upgrade the railroad almost as much as we're going to upgrade it now, build a spur line, which in today's terms would have cost probably about a third of what we're going to spend, and really wouldn't have tapped the major coalfields at all. They were also going to run that coal down to Squamish, which really, in the long run, would have cost somewhere in the vicinity of $4 a tonne extra to move, and they really would not have tapped the major coalfields of the northeast coal block, the major deposit which lies south of the Murray River

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Anyway, I don't know why I really pay any attention to that first member for Vancouver Centre, because he is always talking in airy-fairy situations. I think he's disappointed that we've been able to have a major breakthrough in coal sales, and we're increasing our percentage of coal sales to Japan. We originally set out to try to get one-third of the Japanese market, and I predict that before the end of this decade we will have our one-third, and it will put British Columbia really into the coal market, instead of just having a very small percentage. As I said yesterday, the more coal we sell, the more say we have in the price. That's common business.

I won’t go into it, but the first member for Vancouver Centre made some allusions to me personally and my ability in this portfolio. That doesn't bother me, because the record speaks for itself. Yes, there's great economic development in

[ Page 5880 ]

the province of British Columbia. It's greater than any other province in Canada.

MS. SANFORD: You shut it all down.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we've got it all down. People are gainfully employed, the workers in the province are getting good pay raises and they have job security — which is something they didn't have when you socialists were in power.

I guess I'll leave it at that. Maybe the first member for Vancouver Centre will come back in the House this morning and I'll be able to answer some of his other allegations.

MR. LEGGATT: I think we can sum up the position the minister has taken now. We've had a day or two of debate. The minister's position is very clear. He says: "You must be for our deal on northeast coal, or you are against northeast coal." You see, the minister thinks in very simple concepts. What he's presented, he tells us, is the only deal on northeast coal and, therefore, the opposition is against northeast coal if they don't accept his particular deal.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Of course we're against this deal. We are against it for a couple of reasons that the minister has failed to address. He failed to answer questions. He failed to give us the answer on the surcharge. He failed to address himself to the question of price and what happens to price when the reduced escalator holds that price down, and suddenly we're bargain-selling northeast coal against southeast coal. He hasn't dealt with that issue at all.

I'm not going to debate with the minister about what happened in the years of the NDP administration or in the beginning of the Social Credit administration. I can only sum it up by saying that unemployment was lower — and he can go back to the statistics — during the NDP regime than it ever has been in this regime. The economy of this province was sound and it was extremely well-managed. The difference is the ideological strait-jacket. The difference is that that NDP government gave the taxpayers and ordinary people of this province a decent return on their tax investment.

Let's talk about the future and where we go in terms of the development of our resources. Let's forget about the past for a while and talk about this government's concept of development of resources in British Columbia. It's the same concept that governments have had from the turn of the century in this province. There is no modern thinking in this northeast coal deal at all. It's dig it out, give it away, and hope the spinoffs will be enough.

I want to show you a couple of other developments that have taken place in this country where a little modern thinking has gone on — not this kind of sellout. It's interesting that in the province of Saskatchewan they now have a heritage fund. That heritage fund totals over $4 billion. Alberta has got one that's about $7 billion. Why have Saskatchewan and Alberta done so well and, under this administration, why has the province of British Columbia done so badly? That's the question the minister has got to address. Why has the province of Saskatchewan — a poor province, without nearly the resources this province has — developed a $4 billion heritage fund? The reasons that they have developed a $4 billion heritage fund were eloquently put forth yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and today by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). They decided to treat their taxpayers not only fairly, but they also decided to use tax money wisely for investment. So in Saskatchewan they took an equity position in the potash industry. They decided to quit giving away the resources of Saskatchewan, and they developed a $4 billion heritage fund.

We haven't got a heritage fund in the province of British Columbia, but we're building one. We are building a brand new heritage fund. The only problem is the head office is in Tokyo. It's called the Tokyo Heritage Fund as a direct result of the sellout on northeast coal. That's what we're developing. It's the unheritage fund — the reverse of the heritage fund. These are the debt boys. These are the guys who don't believe in balancing the books; they believe in flimflam, playing with the books and tunnelling those losses into B.C. Hydro.

So it is a bad deal. No one in this party has any hesitation in telling this province that it's a bad deal. But we won't put up with the misleading of the minister or the distortion of the facts out there about the NDP's position. The position is clear: we will develop the northeast and those coalfields, but in the process we will give the people of British Columbia a fair and honest deal for their resources. That's the difference. We're not going to ship it out and give it away.

The history of the negotiations is the fascinating thing to me. Who gave in everywhere along the line? All the way through it was the minister who gave in and reduced the surcharges. Every time his back was against the wall, he backed up a little farther. It's the federal government that's going to get its money back. It's the province that's the loser on this deal. That's why it's a bad deal. The minister was so anxious to make a deal that he made a political — not an economic — decision, so that he could trumpet all over the province: "Look at this. I've made a political coup." But it's a very costly coup.

Not only was the bargaining bad as the deal proceeded — I want the minister to think about this — but he was so anxious for this deal and for any announcement that he has now committed his government. The tenders are out, and the contracts will be let in June for those tunnels. The millions of dollars are in the estimates. Do you know that Teck and Denison haven't put up a nickel in bonding on this deal? This government is putting its money up, but it's not its money. It's the taxpayers' money that's being put up. They forget that. They think that it's shovelled out of the back of the truck. They think it's just there to squander. They're not careful with those funds because, after the taxpayers' money is committed to those tunnels and to that railroad, Teck and Denison will be in a position to say: "Wait a minute. We're not so sure about this thing."

Now what sanction has the minister got if Mr. Andras, who's already done this once to the federal government, turns around and does it to the minister? What options has he got if those two companies decide to say: "We don't like it any more. We've examined our own profit picture" — which is very secret, by the way, which the minister and Price Waterhouse don't know about and which no one knows about; I don't think it's in any of the studies the minister's tabled; I'll go through them again, but I didn't notice any projected profits with regard to Teck and Denison in the analysis.... Surely the first thing that a minister who cares about a return to the public would do is examine what the profitability is for everybody in the deal. But he didn't even bother. From what we can see, he didn't even look at it. That's

[ Page 5881 ]

not responsible. That's not looking after the taxpayers' money.

There's not a cent of bonding on the deal. W.A.C. Bennett used to require bonding. I'll give him credit for that. Although he was a traditional boomer in the sense of this Social Credit Party — that sort of develop, cut-and-run fellow — he did have enough astuteness to recommend bonding from time to time. Not this minister.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Maybe the minister will tell us why he hasn't got a performance bond on this contract. He needs a bond that has to be on a sliding scale. Every time the taxpayers put some money in, we should have a right to see Teck and Denison put some money into that project — not going holus-bolus for political purposes, having all of the taxpayers' money committed and then having the minister sitting in his office and being put in the embarrassing position of a company saying: "Well, it doesn't quite add up." It's a risk the minister is willing to run with the British Columbia taxpayers' money. I'd like him to get up and tell us why he's running that risk.

What the business community thinks about this project is interesting. The idea that the business community is falling all over itself with love of this deal just won't wash in terms of the editorials and the position taken by the business papers of this province. One thing I like about the business page is that they tend to tell the facts. The facts that they've been able to glean on northeast coal are such that a good percentage of that community opposes the northeast coal deal. And he has the temerity to say that this party, which is traditionally based upon average-income people, when we can't even get the commerce magazines to support the deal, should be up here supporting this deal. What is he thinking of? That's absolutely irrational!

We need to look at the future of our resources. There have been some modern governments in the western world who've begun to realize that taxpayers' money is like any other money. You've got to get a reasonable return on it. It's not for squandering. It's not for subsidizing private industry. We've had enough corporate welfare in Canada. This minister believes in that kind of welfare. I know he doesn't like the welfare for poor people who may need a hand. But he likes corporate welfare. He likes to provide all those incentives to the private sector and see the public sector get nothing whatsoever in return for it. We need a reasonable return on investment in northeast coal. This party and government will provide the taxpayers of this country and of this province with a reasonable return on northeast coal, because we believe we should share in the development of that resource and in the sales; yes, we should co-adventure. It's working very well in the province of Saskatchewan.

To a limited extent, Alberta has had a different approach than this province. They understand that public investment is a trust which they are entitled to get a return on. So I would urge the minister to think about the massive losses he is incurring in this province. Don't tell us about Price Waterhouse and all these tax spinoffs. If you take a billion dollars and invest it in the province, you'll get tax spin-offs. The cold, hard reality on the deal is that it's a billion dollars and more into the hole. We get nothing. We are giving away a resource when we could have had a decent return and could have built the heritage fund to provide the kinds of things that the ordinary people in this province deserve and cherish. Instead you're squandering that heritage, Mr. Minister. You're squandering your children's and grandchildren's heritage out of sheer, political reason — the desperation to survive.

I wish you were higher in the Gallup poll before that deal came up. If you were riding high, you wouldn't have been in such a desperate mood. The loss to the province as a result of that desperation to get a couple more points in the poll is something the province will rue for a very long time.

I have an amendment to move on vote 126. The amendment provides as follows: that the minister's office travel expenses be reduced by $6,000. The basis of the reduction is simply to try to keep the minister in line in terms of the expenditures he had in 1980 and 1981. We don't see the need for the tremendous addition. We haven't cut all his travel expenses. You'll see that there's an allocation here of $45,000. We just want to keep the Hawaii trips down to reason, that's all — that's $6,000 in there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) to withdraw the statement "Hawaii trips." I think an allegation is intended there. Maybe he didn't mean to make it. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have never either travelled to Hawaii or stopped in Hawaii on the way back from any of my overseas trips, which some other ministers from other provinces do to rest up. I really resent the insinuation that I have been travelling to Hawaii on the taxpayers' money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, a reference to travel is not offensive to the House; it's not unparliamentary. The minister has made a statement. I cannot ask the member to withdraw something which is neither offensive to the rules or unparliamentary.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I'd better clarify what we're doing here. I did not intend to impute any improper trips to the minister. I don't make a tradition of doing that and I don't intend to, unless there is some evidence. I have no evidence that the minister hasn't carried out his function faithfully. We've always felt he's travelled a bit much, given the results — that's all. He's travelled all over the world. He's learned a good deal while there. We don't think he's learned quite enough on how to deal with foreign governments. He could have used a little help with the coal deal.

But I want to say that I'm very happy to apologize to the minister if he took that as an abuse of his travel fund. I did not suggest in any way that the minister would have abused the travel fund in the sense of using it for vacation purposes.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 28

[ Page 5882 ]

Mr. Macdonald requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 126 approved.

On vote 127: administration, $5,067,086.

MR. LEGGATT: I move that vote 127 be reduced by the sum of $706 425. This amount simply holds the administration back to the 1980-81 level. The growth of this bureaucracy is completely out of control.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 127 approved.

On vote 128: trade and industry division, $3,681,067.

MR. LEGGATT: For the reasons given on the previous vote, we move that vote 128 be reduced by $290,043. Again, this controls the bureaucracy, it stops the overspending and takes us back to the 1980-81 spending level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

MR. RITCHIE: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: Today I'm pleased to introduce to the House another group of students from my constituency. They are from the Abbotsford Christian School, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. de Jong, Mr. Huizenga and Mrs. Venema, and parents, Mrs. Feenstra, Mrs. Jansen and Mr. Venema. Would the House please welcome this group.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 128 approved.

On vote 129: program implementation and coordination, $5,383,039.

MR. LEGGATT: On vote 129 we are moving that program implementation and coordination be reduced by $193,800. The explanation for the reduction lies within the next vote, vote 130, where we see that in small business services they have reduced the staff by five, whereas in program implementation and coordination they've increased the staff by five. I'm concerned to see small business services on the suffering end of this change. The minister, of course, is interested in big deals, but he doesn't seem to be interested in small business.

This amendment is one that I would hope the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the many alleged supporters of small business in that party might support in order to see that we have proper funding in the small business section rather than the minister's big thinking all the time.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the member would look he would realize that the increase in the program implementation and coordination and the decrease in vote 130 for the small business services is strictly an administrative transfer. What we've done is we've transferred the financial evaluation side of the small business vote to the program implementation and coordination vote. That is why one vote is down and the other vote is up. It's strictly an administration move. That's the only reason. There's certainly no decrease or increase in the thrust on either side.

MR. LEA: It's not a case of not looking. We realize that is the case. What we're protesting is the fact that we feel what has been in the small business section of the department is going to get lost to a certain degree by being transferred in that way. We realize what you've done. What we're saying is that we don't particularly agree with it. We think the emphasis should be in the small business vote so that the small business sector can feel confident that they're not going to get lost in the shuffle. That's what we're protesting, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to assure the members opposite that the small business services and the assistance to the small businessmen is not going to get lost in the shuffle. I want to assure you of that.

[ Page 5883 ]

MR. LEA: I for one don't believe the minister is speaking in bad faith. I believe that's the way he sees it, and he's not trying to take away from the small business sector. Our fear is that even with the best of intentions what happens is that it does get lost. From the philosophy they put forward, I would think Social Credit would be able to understand that more than others. The larger the bureaucracy, the less efficiency and the less opportunity, I think, for dealing in a specific way with the concerns of the small business sector. We know that our amendment isn't going to go through, but we would ask that the minister, when administering these two votes, keep in mind what we've said and keep an eye on that area to make sure it isn't lost in the larger bureaucracy of the vote being transferred into that larger section in his department.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 129 approved.

On vote 130: small business services, $1,233,035.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for sending along this little brochure with all the various leaflets, most of which I already have, but I appreciate it anyway. I note that included in this is a summary of grants which have gone to various constituencies — particularly to my constituency — under various programs, including the ASEP grant to business and small industry. I note that Cowichan-Malahat has been fortunate enough to receive several grants according to this: a page and a few more, including as the last entry one Karlite Manufacturing.

The minister is always very good about letting people know when grants have been approved. He sends out letters to the people who have these grants. He sends a copy to me, as the MLA, which gives me an opportunity to write to these people and congratulate them also. He sends a letter to the recipient of the grant, advising that a press release will be sent out, and he does issue press releases. I have here a copy of a press release which was published in the local paper: "Six Firms Win Interest-free Loans." One of them, at Youbou, was Karlite Manufacturing, $30,000 to purchase mobile manufacturing units for a new facility to recycle steel banding, creating 27 jobs.

That's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because Karlite didn't get the loan. They didn't get the grant. They were refused. What kind of administration is it? It writes people and tells them that they have been accepted, congratulates them and wishes them good luck on their venture, sends a copy to the MLA and advises them that this grant has been approved and that the money will be paid. The constituent, in this instance a Mr. Neuffer, proceeds in good faith to conduct his business, to expand it, to produce these mobile band recycling units which will employ 27 people. Then he's turned down. He's refused the money, apparently on the grounds that he started too soon and ended too late.

Really, that belies the whole program. I am led to question how many of these other grants that supposedly came into my constituency actually got there. I know that the recipient of this particular grant was so browned off, if I can use that expression, that he simply threw up his hands and said: "You know, I'm not going to have anything more to do with government at all." This left him in a very awkward position. A friend of his asked permission to bring the file to me. I have contacted the minister's office, and the explanations that the member had at that time were very vague. It's through my contact with his office that I now have this letter which indicates that he has been turned down. Apparently it's because he started too soon and ended too late.

I would suggest that that minister should look well and thoroughly into an application to decide and find out whether or not the applicant has already started and if that's one of the disqualifying factors before he writes and tells him that he's going to get an interest-free, forgivable loan of $30,000. If that's the kind of procedure the minister and ministry are following in order to make themselves appear as good fellows — handing out all these grants to my constituency, dishing them out and then saying, "Well, sorry, you did this or that, so you're not going to get it" — it doesn't look very good. In view of the fact that I have had some correspondence and discussions with the ministry on this particular case, I had expected that I wouldn't see Karlite listed here. But there it is, big as as life — $30,000.

How many of those others got their grants, or how much of it is just figures in the book? What are you going to do about Karlite? You made some very definite promises, Mr. Minister. I would like you to stand up on this floor today and tell the owner of Karlite. through the pages of Hansard, that you are prepared to reconsider. After all, you made a promise and he proceeded on the basis of that promise. Are you as good as your word, or aren't you? That's what I'm asking the minister. Is he prepared to stand behind his word? Is he prepared to re-evaluate Karlite? Is this just one exception, or is this the sort of thing that happens and we just haven't heard about it before?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the question, no, it isn't just the sort of thing that happens and you haven't heard about it. It's the same old deal in government. You do a thousand things right and make one mistake.... I don't know the particular instances of this case, but I would suggest that if the member were doing her job she would have come to my office and brought this to my attention a long time ago. We probably could have had it straightened out. But I do want to point out to the member that my door is always open. If you have constituency problems, bring them to me.

[ Page 5884 ]

This is a good program. We put out a lot of loans. But I must point out to the member that there are legal, binding agreements on both sides of this. Unless the legal, binding agreements on the part of both parties are lived up to, it can't go forward. As you know, it's a joint provincial-federal program, I sometimes get a little frustrated myself. On the other hand, it's a good check, because it has to go before a joint committee. The loans are very well scrutinized. It's a good program.

If there's been a mistake made and your constituent in question has not received justice, we'll certainly take a look at it. Before I can answer you — and I can't get them this morning — I want to check into the situation. I'll get a full report and assure you that justice will be done. If we have failed, we'll certainly rectify the situation. However, if the constituent has failed to live up to his part of the agreement, that also has to stand. In cases like this I would suggest to the member — she knows that the minister certainly doesn't personally do all the administration of these programs — that she come to the minister's office and discuss it with him. Let me get an opportunity. I don't know how long you've known about this, but I would suggest you're doing your constituent a great injustice if you haven't brought it to my attention prior to this time.

MRS. WALLACE: Just for the minister's information, I have been dealing with one of his representatives for some little time. When it first came to my attention, I contacted the ministry immediately. I have had some correspondence. There were some decided delays in getting the correspondence. I guess it went on about a month just with telephone conversations. Finally on May 8 I received a letter of which you also received a copy, Mr. Minister, from your assistant deputy minister, relative to this. I have been trying to deal with it. Certainly in my experience it's much better to put things in writing, because then we have the answers. When you simply talk about things over the telephone or in a private office meeting, there's no record of that and nothing happens when that takes place. That's why I prefer to deal in writing. I have been dealing with your officials — your assistant deputy — on this, and you have had a copy, Mr. Minister. So to stand there and say that if I had come to see you things would have been fine....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say that at all.

MRS. WALLACE: I think the minister indicated that I was not serving my constituent properly because I hadn't come to see him. I want the record to show very clearly that I have been dealing for some time with his ministry and I have a letter from his assistant deputy of which he also has a copy. Nothing is happening. That man is being turned down. Certainly I have written back to his assistant deputy. That letter was dated May 15. I still have no response to that. If this thing could have been resolved prior to his estimates coming up, that would have been it — over and done. But when I don't get answers, this is the only course of action open to an MLA.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's the minister's place to counsel members of the House on whether or not, in his view, they are serving their electorate adequately in any event. I think the minister is barely able to appropriately administer his own department, without presuming to be judge over the conduct of other members.

I have complaints similar to those of my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). One of the issues the minister failed to address himself to was the fact that, for whatever reason, this grant was not following through. Yet in the press release and in the statistical data which the minister puts out as the performance record of his ministry, it was shown as a grant that was completed. That is not factual; that is not truthful. Whether or not there was a case for the ministry to turn down the grant, that is certainly between the applicant and the ministry. But to then claim in his press release and in his ministerial report that that grant had in fact been paid out is a fairly serious matter, because that indicates a certain disposition of public funds which, in fact, never took place. That shows a very faulty, sloppy and incompetent administration. One of the problems, I suspect, by my own record in dealing with these ASEP grants to small business, is the fact that when the application is made the ministry's committee studies it, and then they come forward with an approval and they write a letter to the applicant, along with a copy to the local MLA, saying: "Yes, your grant is approved." They fail to lay out in an ongoing way the terms and conditions of the contract in an ongoing way, which would entitle the applicant to fully benefit from the total amount of the grant. In many cases, in the final analysis, only a portion of the maximum $30,000 grant is allowed, and it's deceiving to many of the applicants. I've had these complaints on a number of occasions and I intended to bring it to the minister's attention as a matter of policy. I agree with the minister: it's a good program. But I think that perhaps the ministry is obsessed with trying to gain more favourable publicity out of the program rather than with administering it effectively. So I would suggest to the minister, as a positive suggestion....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, that's the minister's opinion, but the facts seem to belie his assurances. My suggestion to the minister would be simply this: explain very carefully both through correspondence and the field representatives that when the grant is approved, that does not automatically guarantee that the full $30,000 will be delivered to the project. In fact a whole variety of rules and regulations must be complied with during the construction, the expansion or whatever it is. I tell the minister in all good faith that a number of small businesses out there are very confused about this and, in the final analysis, when they fail to receive the full benefit, they feel they've been deceived by the ministry.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there is no intent to deceive any small business. You know that. As I said before, there is a legal, binding agreement, and you don't want me shovelling taxpayers' money out if the recipient doesn't live up to his end of the bargain. I know some of these small businessmen get frustrated, because they think that they can just come to government, get a blank cheque and go away. That's not so, and I'm sure the member realizes that he wouldn't want this ministry to do that.

The whole purpose of the program is to create jobs and assist the small entrepreneur. That's why I initiated this program. You know as well as I do that a lot of these small entrepreneurs have a good idea. We counsel some of them with assistance. To assist these fellows, we set up an industrial commissioner program which is second to none in any province in Canada. Maybe they should take more advantage

[ Page 5885 ]

of it. I'll take a look at the whole program and see how we can give greater assistance to the small businessman.

MR. LEGGATT: We were noticing the tremendous reduction in this particular vote, again confirming the lack of emphasis on small business services.

Vote 130 approved.

On vote 131: grants, $7,112,500.

MR. LEVI: I wonder if the minister would tell us what the $393,500 for the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation is for. What's that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The Burns Lake Native Development Corporation is really administered through the Attorney-General's department.

MR. LEVI: What is it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not going to do the member's homework. He knows full well what the Burns Lake native development program is.

MR. LEVI: Well, tell us what it is.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's already a matter of public record. I'm certainly not going to do the member's homework in this Legislature. He knows what the program is.

MR. LEVI: God, you know, the guy with the loud mouth and the mind in neutral and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: You really cannot tell me what that's all about? I want to tell you what it's all about. I'm surprised it's even there. I thought you would have destroyed it in your usually destructive way with NDP programs. You can't really talk about the Burns Lake development, and you can't talk about the Babine mill. You really have to gag on that, do you? How many jobs were created there? Some 350. It's participation for the Indians. Don't talk about that one — only the destructive ones. You can't remember what it's all about! There's a program that created jobs and helped the Indian people to get a fair share of the resources of this province, and you've never once talked about it — neither the minister who was responsible before nor you. You prefer to ignore it. It's amazing. You're the minister of all things and all people, but you don't want to comment on this one. You don't want to talk about a $15 million sawmill that was put up and created employment. You don't want to talk about that, eh? It's too positive — only the negative things.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not really sure what the member's question is, but maybe I should inform him that I have indeed been to Burns Lake and met with the people. We've worked with them and rescued the program. That member left it in horrible shape. We have worked with the people up there, and we've now got them functioning well. We've assisted them with their manager. I know all about the program, Mr. Chairman. Actually we rescued it from the horrible mess that member left it in.

MR. SKELLY: I have a brief question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development about the LILA program. I'd just like to describe some of the things the harbour commission is doing in my riding. They've set up a building in which they plan to establish a fish-processing plant. It conforms with all provincial and federal regulations. The idea was that the harbour commission would provide the building and a private contractor would provide the equipment and services within the building. The harbour commission had their money and financing available, and suddenly the LILA program disappeared. They're wondering what happened to the LILA program and when this person is going to be able to make application for LILA financing. I believe the critic asked the minister the question during the first part of debate on his estimates, and he didn't respond. What's happened to the LILA program, and when will my constituent be able to make application in order that we can get a good, full-scale fish-processing facility going in Port Alberni?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, in the very near future.

MR. SKELLY: Why has the program been terminated? Every month the delay carries on is going to cost both the harbour commission and the contractor tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of thousands in interest. Can the minister give us a little better timetable as to when the program is going to be reinstated — and what happened to it in the first place?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The LILA program, as the member knows, has been a very successful program — so much so that we augmented the LILA I program with the LILA 2 program. It's administered by the B.C. Development Corporation. We're amalgamating the two now. We're reassessing the program in terms of its success. I hope within the next ten days or so you should be able to reapply.

Vote 131 approved.

On vote 132: northeast coal development, $22,930,000.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to spend a brief minute or two with you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee on this. I don't want to go over again the very worthwhile, imaginative and highly complimentary suggestion made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yesterday. It was complimentary to the well-being of this province, an idea which we have put forward in other forms on other occasions. It dealt with the necessity of ensuring that the general public of this province, who are going to have to dig into their pockets and put up something upwards of a billion dollars into this project, should get something in return. It's the co-adventure concept, the equity concept as distinct from the subvention concept. The very worthwhile suggestion made by the member for Prince Rupert was fluff pushed to one side by the minister yesterday. He wasn't interested in anything of that nature. He's only interested in his own preconceived notion as to how he should sell out this province to interests in other lands.

I want to put forward an amendment to you, Mr. Chairman. Before I do, though, I want to draw your attention to how the procedure in parliament develops in a historic sense and what it comprises. There are three facets to it. One is

[ Page 5886 ]

history; the other is our standing orders; and the third is rulings from the Chair, which establishes practice and establishes the rules to follow things here. Any time something new comes along — some different proposal, some imaginative idea that doesn't quite fit within the confinements of the rules as they exist back into antiquity someplace — it's an obligation on the part of the Chair, I think, to recognize the necessity of breaking new ground.

I'm going to put an amendment to your honour that will test your mettle in that regard and assist this committee in breaking new ground and provide something for future generations in this province that the government has so far been absolutely blind to. I would therefore move that the motion be amended by adding thereto the following: provided that the province of British Columbia use the funds so granted by this vote to acquire an equity position in northeast coal development.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair thanks the member for his preamble. The amendment is out of order because it changes the destination of the vote before us. I therefore rule that the amendment cannot proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Because of the unprecedented necessity of doing something new in this chamber, I must challenge that ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Being challenged, I will have to report to the Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee an amendment came to the Chair which purported to change the destination of a vote. I ruled that the amendment could not be accepted. The Chair's ruling has been challenged.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 18

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

Vote 132 approved.

On vote 133: British Columbia Railway — debt servicing, $70,000,000.

MR. BRUMMET: I would just like to ask the minister very briefly if he would encourage the board of directors and management of B.C. Rail to actively and aggressively solicit the potential mining-ore business from the Northwest Territories, to be hauled along the B.C. Rail. In order to do that, it may require an investment in some loading facilities in Fort Nelson. Cadillac mines is an example. It is developing an ore property in the Northwest Territories. There are a number of other properties as well. Cadillac has the option of bringing that ore down through Fort Nelson and the B.C. Rail system, to improve the transportation revenue, or taking it across the Yukon to the coast. I would like to suggest, with the Laird highway opening up there, that an active and aggressive program of soliciting ore-hauls from those mines be undertaken.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's remarks. I know that we're looking at it. I will pursue it at the first of the week to find out exactly where it's at and advise the member.

MR. HOWARD: The remarks of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) are very interesting. If he was doing his duty as he should, he would have been one of those clamouring and asking for the Crown corporations committee to meet so that we could look at this subject matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the vote, please.

MR. HOWARD: Obviously the member is not interested in doing that until after the session is over, so that he can put in his chit for $50 a day for expenses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the member to order. We are discussing vote 133.

MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that that member withdraw his insinuation that I am only interested in some per diem money. I think that's a rather nasty accusation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. If the hon. member for Skeena has imputed any false or improper motive to the member for North Peace River, I will ask the member to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: I imputed no motives. I was just stating facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't accept that, hon. member. I will have to ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motives by the member for North Peace River.

MR. HOWARD: I just said that, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 5887 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will have to ask for a withdrawal, please, of any imputation.

MR. HOWARD: Let me repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, in case the Chair was not listening. I said I did not impute any improper motives to the member for North Peace River. I was stating facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't accept that, hon. member. I will ask the hon. member for Skeena if he will make an unconditional withdrawal of any imputation of false or improper motives to the hon. member for North Peace River.

MR. HOWARD: Is the Chair of the opinion that I have not already done so?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Then I am sorry that you are mistaken and misunderstood what I did. In order to clear the matter up in your mind, yes, I will accede to the specific request you make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And will withdraw. Thank you.

MR. BRUMMET: I'm not quite clear whether that member has withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is satisfied, hon. member.

MR. BRUMMET: I distinctly heard that member say, Mr. Chairman, that the member for North Peace River was not interested, and that the only thing he was interested in was to get his money for a meeting after a session, and he says: "That is a fact." That is not a fact, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is satisfied that the member for Skeena has withdrawn any imputation of improper motive against the member for North Peace River. That withdrawal has been made unconditionally, and the matter is ended.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I don't wish to reiterate what I said yesterday in regard to the passenger service on the BCR north of Prince George and particularly north of Fort St. James — and I do appreciate the minister's undertaking yesterday to accompany me on that particular service as soon as we get out of Victoria after the House rises this summer...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF:...or whenever, Mr. Chairman. We're here to do the work of the people of the province of British Columbia, and if we have to stay here till Christmas to do it, it doesn't bother me or, I'm sure, any member on this side of the floor. Whenever we get out, I appreciate the minister's undertaking to accompany me on that run. I would hope that that trip would be done without the knowledge of the BCR, because I'd like to have it as a surprise, so that the minister really finds out exactly what the conditions are that are being experienced by the people having to use that particular passenger service on our Crown corporation railway.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to also ask that as well as doing that, the minister actively pursue a course of action immediately that will attempt to find for that railway the moneys to buy those two new Budd cars, because they're going to cost $2 million. If you've read their statements and know the financial situation of that railway, that's going to be very difficult for them to do. So I think it's going to have to come from other means. As I said yesterday, we seem to be able to find hundreds of millions of dollars for light rapid transit in the lower mainland of this province. I see no reason whatsoever why we as government can't find a mere $2 million to provide a proper system of transportation for the people north of Fort St. James.

Vote 133 approved.

Vote 134: federal-provincial shared-cost programs, $29,895,806 — approved.

On vote 135: building occupancy charges, $1,027,000.

MR. LEGGATT: Under vote 135 we would move that building and occupancy charges be reduced by $312,000. In accordance with the rationale and the reasoning that has been presented on the other votes, we think you should be limited to reasonable expenditures based on the 1980-81 expenditures.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 135 approved.

On vote 136: computer and consulting charges, $913,800.

MR. LEGGATT: I have an amendment that vote 136, computer and consulting charges, be reduced by $64,800. It sounds like a good motion to me. I thought it might appeal to you people, because, on the same principle as all the others, we think it's reasonable that we move back to the spending of 1980-81.

[ Page 5888 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 136 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I use it as a device to perhaps get from the House Leader what the business might be on Monday.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's no need for you to.... You two can get together after we adjourn. Calm down!

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:09 p.m.