1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1501 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 36.

Mr. Wallace — 1501

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1505

Mr. King — 1506

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1506

Mr. Skelly — 1506

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1509

Mr. Gibson — 1509

Mr. Lauk — 1510

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1513

Mr. D'Arcy — 1515

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1517

Ms. Brown — 1518

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1520

Mr. Levi — 1520

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1521

Mr. Lauk — 1522

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1522

Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 4.

Mrs. Wallace — 1523

Mr. Stupich — 1523

Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 37.

Mr. Lauk — 1523

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1523

Mr. Wallace — 1523

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1523

Mr. Stupich — 1523

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1524

Mr. Lockstead — 1524

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1524

On vote 38.

Mr. Lauk — 1524

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1524

Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 4.

Mr. Wallace — 1524

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1525

Mrs. Wallace — 1525

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1525

Mr. Skelly — 1526

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1526

Mr. Stupich — 1526

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1526

FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today we have two visitors to watch the proceedings, Mr.

Franz Hollenberg from Germany and Mr. Peter Aufdermauer of Switzerland.

I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

sometime this morning we will have a high school class from

Belmont-Fisher in my constituency. They will be accompanied by their

teacher, Mary Elford. I'd ask the House to make them welcome please.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Also in the galleries today will

be a group of grade 7 students from Ucluelet Elementary School. They

have come all the way to watch our proceedings and I'd like the House

to make them welcome as well.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask leave to file information relating to a question asked

yesterday by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 36: minister's office, $95,304 — continued.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in this debate the important theme is to compare the government's actions with its words.

We have had both the budget speech and the Clarkson Gordon report

telling us that what we need is to develop taxation policies which

reduce the burden on the individual taxpayer and increase revenue from

our natural resources. That seems eminently wise and sound until we

look at the situation in British Columbia today.

Without going back on a former vote of the House on the budget, we see that

the thrust of the government at this point has been in — fact to increase in

many ways taxes on the individual, not the least of which is the 2 per cent

sales tax, and we needn't recycle that argument on this particular vote.

I think the principle has been demonstrated very clearly by this

government, that it is espousing what appears to be a sound policy of

trying to derive more revenue from resources and less from the

individual. Yet its very actions and much of the debate that's taken

place to this point in this session has been to criticize the

government for doing the very opposite of what they claim they believe.

We've had increased taxes of one kind or another: we've had

increased rates for hydro, recently the ferry rates have been

increased, income tax has been increased, and we have had very little

outline of the other side of the argument. In other words, we've had no

clear-cut outline of how two of the main sources of revenue from our

natural resources are to be dealt with. All we do know is that last

year our revenue from the forest industry was $100 million less than

expected. We know that the mining industry has been producing much less

in revenue than expected, the end of the recession, which was predicted

by so many economists, may well have reached the bottom of the trough.

There seems to be a very slow rate of recovery, compared to many of the

predictions.

We've also heard about the fact that our primary problem in Canada

is to fight inflation, and I believe that to be true. While economics

and the economic development is a complex matter which, I suppose, the

average citizen finds very difficult to understand in any detail, there

certainly is one thing the individual does understand: every time he

puts his hand in his pocket it costs him more money than it did a

little while ago to buy the same service or the same product.

I'd like to talk for just a few minutes from the point of view of

the layman and many of the citizens in this province who make this kind

of comment to me quite frequently. It's based very much on the

Premier's statement yesterday — what seemed to me a very surprising

statement — in which he criticized the federal government for not

advancing the concept of increasing the price of a barrel of oil fast

enough.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the

experts keep telling us that it is economically bad to have a two-price

system, to have a domestic price and a foreign export price. This whole

question of oil and the very fundamental influence on our economy,

which is caused by the price of oil, or increases in the price of oil,

is certainly very puzzling to the man on the street.

I can well remember in 1974 when I happened to be on holiday in

Hawaii at the time of the phony oil shortage in the United States, and

there was a literal lining up for hours of individual U.S. automobile

operators at the gas pumps, starting at 4, 5 and 6 o'clock in the

morning. There wasn't just a national but an international panic

almost, that somehow or

[ Page 1502 ]

other our oil supplies were at such a critical

level if we were, perhaps, unable to afford Venezuelan and Middle East

imports. There were some dreadful predictions of disaster,

economically, for the North American continent. Then, all of a sudden,

the problem didn't seem to be half as bad, and then a little later we

don't talk about it at all. While there may be some valid economic and

professional explanations of what went on at that time, in the minds of

the consumer it's just one great big con game by the oil companies.

To bring the situation closer to home, we now have the province of

Alberta, supported by the province of British Columbia, saying that the

sooner we can get a Canadian price for a barrel of oil up by at least

$2 right now, and maybe another $3 very shortly, to bring it up to the

price charged by foreign oil producers....

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I readily confess I'm a layman in this area,

but I'm also a taxpayer and a consumer. I thought that in fighting

inflation one of our real aims was to remain competitive in exporting

products, particularly manufactured goods from eastern Canada to

consuming countries. I also thought, just as a layman reading the

newspapers and so on, that the cost of oil has so much to do with the

basic cost of production that I can't understand how we will be

fighting inflation if we rapidly increase the cost of our own oil to

our own consumers, our own manufacturing and producing industries,

because such an increase in price surely inevitably increases our cost

of production, and in no way helps us to be more competitive in foreign

markets. That's just a simple observation that I've never really had a

simple contradiction to by the experts.

The thing which Premier Bennett seems to believe, and I agree that

many other persons believe the same thing, is that since oil is worth

$13 a barrel on the international market and we at home are evaluating

it at more or less $8 a barrel, we are not getting a realistic value

for home-produced oil.

If we are to be efficient economically and compete in foreign

markets, surely we could have a two-price system where the home

consumer and the home producer get the lower price value of

home-produced oil. I should be very careful, I guess, when I talk about

home-produced oil, as I might be misunderstood — I mean domestically

produced oil. Not only would this, at least in the short run, be some

kind of hedge against inflation and the cost of living for the

individual Canadian, but it seems to me that since it so intimately

affects every aspect of production it would, in fact, enable us to

produce goods at a cheaper price and would keep down all these other

costs of transportation and home heating and all the various ways in

which we use oil and oil products and in which every single citizen is

intimately involved in any change in the price.

The conservationist tells us that if oil is worth $13 a barrel on

the international market that's what it should be worth in British

Columbia or Alberta, and that if we paid more we would conserve more

and oil supplies would last longer, or we could predict a reliable

supply of oil further down the road. Mr. Chairman, after the tremendous

panic in the United States two or three years ago, there was the great

outcry that we must conserve our oil supplies, and yet I'm not aware of

any statistical study that shows that consumers' behaviour has

appreciably changed in the consumption of oil or oil products. I don't

see all the big cars off the highway, and I don't see people shivering

in their homes because they haven't enough oil or won't pay the price

to heat their homes.

The third element in all this, of course, is the fact that just five

or six years ago our national government was predicting that we had oil

supplies which would give us self-sufficiency for 20 or 25 years. Now,

all of a sudden, we are told that the figures that were projected at

that time have proved to be inaccurate and that the rate at which we

are finding new oil supplies is much less than had been predicted.

The Canadian man-in-the-street who diligently watches the Canadian

hockey games and the Stanley Cup sees Imperial Oil spending many, many

advertising dollars reminding us what a terrible time the oil companies

are having in the face of government interference and price controls

and many other restrictions, and telling us how expensive it is to

explore for new sources of oil — and that's true. I'm not denying that

it is expensive to explore in the Beaufort Sea or whichever location

they happen to be discussing, but in the light of all this the average

Canadian in the street doesn't see the oil companies going on welfare,

exactly. The explanation for wanting to put the price of oil up another

$2 a barrel is that the oil companies need more money to finance

exploration in the north. In theory this sounds very reasonable, but I

think if you talk to 99 out of 100 Canadians they are not satisfied

that the accountability of the oil companies justified the penalty and

the inflationary consequences right now of jacking up the price of a

barrel or oil by another $2.

I have yet to read of a reasonable, simple explanation as to the

terrible evils of the two-price system, which so many economists and

experts almost unanimously seem to believe in. The feeling is that we

just cannot have a two-price system for oil.

Not too long ago one of the World Bank people — I think it was

McNamara — talked about food power instead of oil power and the fact,

for example, that Canada exports millions of bushels of wheat to China,

to take that just as a simple specific. Mr. Chairman, if a two-price

system in oil is such a tragedy or is so bad for this country or this

province, how is it that it's so easy to have a two-price system for

food? We're glad

[ Page 1503 ]

to sell wheat to China or Russia for any price we can get.

So, Mr. Chairman, without beating this argument to death, there are

so many conflicting and confusing aspects to it that I wonder if the

minister could, perhaps sometime during the debate this morning,

comment at least briefly on what I thought was a very fundamental

definition of this government's position by the Premier's statement in

Ottawa yesterday. It's an aspect of our economic development which had

not previously been mentioned at any length in this Legislature during

debates on the budget, for example, although the whole question of

inflation was debated at great length, as indeed it should be.

I wonder if we could be told by the minister today what economic and

statistical studies have been done in the very recent past to determine

the impact on B.C.'s economy if the price of oil is increased, as it

may well be, by $2 a barrel following the present conference in Ottawa.

It is quite obvious from the statements of the national minister, Mr.

Gillespie, and of Prime Minister Trudeau in the recent past that they

do indeed seem to be willing to accept the Alberta request to raise the

price.

All I know is that despite all the more abstruse or highly complex

economic arguments, you should ask the man in the street in British

Columbia what he thinks about jacking up our own oil another $2 a

barrel at a time when he or she is being hammered from every direction

by increased costs, increased provincial government taxation and a host

of other economic problems.

It just seems to me that we're running in opposite directions at the

same time. We've built up an enormous federal bureaucracy, almost

inevitably, in order to implement anti-inflation measures. We have

provincial governments saying that they generally support the

anti-inflation measures of the federal government which in a variety of

essential commodities try to control price and wage increases and

dividend increases. Yet on the other hand we have both national and

provincial governments at least appearing to contradict themselves by

eagerly trying to increase the price of a barrel of oil, which is so

fundamental to just about everything that the individual does, from

getting his car from home to work to heating his home, and fundamental

to many of the other byproducts of the oil industry too.

I was disappointed particularly in part of the Premier's statement,

because it sounded very much like: "If you scratch my back, I'll

scratch yours." Part of the statement, if he's reported correctly — and

I quote from the Vancouver Sun

of last evening — is as follows: "Premier Bennett said that B.C. is

pushing for a sharp boost, even though the province relies on imported

oil, because it is in the long-term interest of resource-rich provinces

such as B.C. to be free from federal interference." He goes on to talk

about the "the tremendous plans we have in the making for the

extraction of coal in British Columbia." I just have to ask the

question: how much is Premier Bennett a federalist and how much is he

an isolationist? Are we supporting Alberta at a time when Alberta's

trying to get more bucks for oil because we want Alberta's support

later on to get more bucks for our coal? Just what a very delightful

isolationist argument that is.

We've had statements from this government and from this Premier in

its early days that the days of the empty chair at the conferences in

Ottawa are over — that this Premier and this government believe in the

strongest terms that we have a confederation of provinces and that

that's what we believe in and that's what we'll support. But, Mr.

Chairman, in a confederation of states or provinces some are at a much

disadvantaged position. In this particular argument we have to think of

the Maritime provinces. When the "oil crisis" hits North America, the

national government, with the cooperation of the provincial

governments, agreed that there should be some subsidy, at least on a

temporary basis, to the individual oil consumer in the Maritime

provinces, but this kind of statement from the Premier suggests that

we're rich in coal and that British Columbia is entitled to get every

last nickel of revenue out of that coal, which is completely devoid of

any responsibility to what the federal government might feel is its

responsibility in deriving federal revenue from our provincial

resources.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this could get into a long argument

about the BNA Act and who said what about the ownership of resources.

This in turn leads to the great concern that the federal government

will patriate the constitution on its own and might even try and amend

it on its own. So I'm not unaware that this is a pretty far-reaching

and dangerous situation when we have an argument between federal and

provincial levels as to what can be done with provincial resources and

how taxation should be applied.

But if the Premier of this province thinks that he can go and play

footsie with Alberta about the price of oil right now because he hopes

they'll play footsie with us when we're all ready to sell a lot of

coal, I think that that is rather a parochial and isolationist approach

which really, again, in words contradicts the expoused philosophy of

this government, that we very much believe in Canadian Confederation

and that provinces that are rich in resources should not simply expect

to develop them to the greatest financial benefit to that province

without consideration on a sharing basis with the other provinces.

I am not overlooking the fact that there is a system of so-called

equalization grants and that that is all up for renegotiation by 1977.

We've touched on

[ Page 1504 ]

this question of equalization grants and

cost-sharing programmes and hospital costs and many other areas in the

last several weeks in this House. But if this province is to diversify

its economy and develop different types of jobs and be less dependent

on one or two basic primary industries.... It really puzzles me how we

can do that by pressing right now to increase the cost of one of the

basic commodities that makes industry tick. It's a question, Mr.

Chairman, which I think the minister should at least touch upon

sometime during the debate today because I would very confidently

believe that 99 out of 100 British Columbians read the paper last night

and said: "My God! We're just trying to cope with increases in our cost

of living in five different directions in the last few weeks since the

provincial budget. Now we find the Premier of this province, who says

he is fighting inflation, wants to put up the cost of this basic

commodity, oil, by another $2 a barrel. It's Canadian oil to start

with!"

We've accused Venezuela and the Middle East countries of putting a

gun to our heads on the price of imported oil, but apparently there is

some strong thinking in this country that we should just gradually

follow the example set by these other countries.

The other subject that I want to touch upon briefly.... How long

have I got to go, Mr. Chairman? Do you know how many minutes...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll give you the warning in two minutes.

MR. WALLACE: The other industry that is so important to

British Columbia is the forest industry. Although we've quite correctly

expressed deep concern about a loss in revenue last year from the

forest industry, there is nothing in the budget specifically and there

has been nothing stated by this minister as to any initiatives that the

government is planning to attempt to improve the financial situation or

the revenue to be derived from the forest industry.

The Council of Forest Industries, which is a voice which speaks with

a great deal of knowledge and experience; has just submitted a brief to

the federal government and the Minister of Finance hoping that he will

pay some attention to their views when he is preparing the budget,

which is to be brought down shortly. But one of the disturbing points

that was made by the retiring president of the Council of Forest

Industries at their recent annual convention was that there is

anti-Canadian sentiment in the United States, which has a very negative

effect on the prospects of selling more lumber south of the border.

I wonder if the minister would agree that that is a factor, or is it

simply the slump in the economy and the drop in housing starts in the

United States. Regardless of these particular factors, what is the

government planning to do in an attempt to revive the forest industry

and bring about recovery in the kind of revenue which this government

can expect in keeping with its commitment to get more money from the

resources and less from individuals?

I suppose we have to acknowledge that the Pearse commission has been

investigating the forest industry in great detail. I understand the

report should be due within the next month or two. But I don't think

that that in itself should be given as an excuse to delay some comment

on how our economic development will be enhanced by some initiatives

taken in the forest industry. I read time and time again that despite

the good intentions of the environmentalists, the cost of logging to

the logging companies has been substantially increased with tougher

logging guidelines and the amount of money that has to be spent leaving

the site cleared to a certain standard, and many of the other technical

factors that 1, as a layman, do not understand. But the cost of logging

the trees, in relation to the financial return in the forest industry,

has apparently led to problems, both in meeting these costs and,

consequently, in producing less return to the investor so that the

forest industry has become a less attractive form of investment.

I don't know how often we hear in this House, and at the national

level, what a terrible thing it is to have so much foreign investment

in Canada. Again, all I can ask as a layman is if we didn't have the

foreign investment, have we enough Canadians with enough guts and

confidence to put their dollars into many of the industries which

depend so intimately on capital investment?

One of the main themes of the brief submitted by the Council of

Forest Industries to the federal government is to revise tax — laws

which will help industry to obtain capital for capital development and

expansion. I know, and the minister agrees with me — and I am talking

at the moment about federal initiatives which could be taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have just a little lower noise level in the room so the minister can understand the debate?

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just about to finish my comments.

What can we do or what are we planning to do at the provincial level

to change the taxation structure on the forest industry to increase

capital investment and, hopefully, to make it a more efficient and a

more productive industry?

The other point made by the brief is the vital importance of

productivity. It mentions that with the labour strife and the labour

costs we have, particularly in British Columbia, that again is a factor

which limits the capacity of the taxation legislation to be effective,

If there are long shutdowns in the

[ Page 1505 ]

industry with expensive equipment with large

carrying charges just sitting idle, then obviously productivity is

severely affected. The last point they make in the brief — and in this

respect I would agree that the government is trying to cut its own

costs and decrease the size of government — is the staggering situation

at the federal level, that between 1952 and 1975 the government share

of the gross national product has gone from 27 per cent to 42 per cent.

So at the federal level we've got the federal government taking almost

half of each dollar of the gross national product. One of the reasons

for that is the immense growth in the size of government and the

government waste in spending.

So if I have to stud my comments with severe criticism of the

provincial government for taxing people instead of resources, I have at

least to end up by agreeing that this government is on the right track

in trying to limit its own spending and its own size so that the

government expenditure of the gross provincial product, hopefully, as a

percentage is declining.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to respond briefly to some of the comments

made by the member for Oak Bay. I don't wish to get into a lengthy

philosophical dissertation on the price of oil, but I do want to point

out — and I've felt this and I think I've stated it publicly before —

that had the oil been in the province of Ontario or Quebec, and the

federal government made its moves, maybe they might have taken an

entirely different attitude.

I also feel very strongly, on the overall picture, that had

governments stayed out of the regulation of our petroleum industry way

back starting in the United States, we would have had an abundant

supply of oil today and the price would have been far less than it is

today. I may be accused of sticking up for the multinational

corporation — and I really don't care what I am accused of. But it's

the regulation and manipulation by governments into that field that

have really caused, first of all, the artificial shortage, which was

not caused by the oil companies, have slowed the search for new

petroleum products — and you can go on the syndrome that we are going

to run out. Well, maybe some day we are going to run out, but every

time we get to the verge of running out, we always seem to find a new

source. I don't know if that's planned by the oil companies or whether

it's planned by the government. As I say, we could get into a very

lengthy discussion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We had the situation here in the province

of British Columbia where the government was going to go in and do all

sorts of things. What did they do? They drove the oil companies out of

British Columbia so that we didn't continue with our search and find,

which is the real nuts and bolts of the oil industry and, as a matter

of fact, of any natural resource other than our trees and our water

which we can readily see. But minerals, the whole deal.... As I say, I

don't want to get into any lengthy discussion. But the real nuts and

bolts is the old supply-demand situation. The real problem with our

energies is to find new sources.

If anybody had said 12 years ago that we were going to find oil on

the north slope, or gas in the Mackenzie delta.... I remember arguing

back in 1966, when we first went into the Arctic, and I said: "Well,

you're crazy! Why don't you search in the areas that are cheaper,

because you can't get it out anyway?" But I, at that time, happened to

be wrong. We found that that will be a bountiful supply for us at a

later date.

Last year I was reading where in Louisiana an independent drilling

company went in and found a huge gas field, and all the majors had gone

over it. But they need that risk capital, and they also must have their

return. We have supplies in our own Grizzly Valley that have been

sitting there. Oil companies have spent millions and millions of

dollars in the search, but it sits there, and there will be no further

search until such time as there is some return on that investment. So I

realize you also can use the argument that if we're really going to

conserve our energy, then the higher the price tag we put on it, the

more conservation there will be. There are all kinds of arguments, but

the real crux of the situation is that it's costing oil companies more

today to search in the high Arctic to find their oil, and particularly

in British Columbia it's about the same price level, I'm told, for

searching. We're having to bring it farther, it's costing a lot more to

search for, it's costing a lot more to drill, the price of labour is

high, the price of getting in there is higher. The real crux has got to

be that you've got to have that return.

Maybe today, by putting up the price of oil to the level of the

world market — which is really what we have to look at; I think we've

had too many shortsighted policies on behalf of governments — in the

long run it will probably be to the best benefit of the western Canada

oil industry.

MR. WALLACE: What about, the immediate impact of two bucks right now on the cost of living?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The immediate impact of two bucks, I'm

told.... At any rate, the federal government is going to increase the

price of gasoline by 10 cents this year, in July. That announcement has

been stated. Yes, it's going to have an impact on our cost of living

and on the cost of producing our merchandise. But maybe that impact

that it's going to

[ Page 1506 ]

have now is going to be relatively small compared

to the long term, and it's the long term we have to look at for future

generations and the supply. Because I want to tell you that if we run

out and do not search for new fields and new supplies, then the impact

will be far greater than the temporary impact we're going to experience

today. That's really what we have to look at.

As I say, it's to find — the old case of supply and demand. But I-

want to tell you, it's always easy to take these multinational

companies as whipping boys — and they are multinational; they're big —

and you can say there's no competition. They're always a good whipping

boy, but it was not the multinational corporations that were

responsible for the price we're paying for gasoline today. It just so

happens that it was government interference. And there's a difference

of philosophy, and I understand that, but it's the long-range view that

we must take in that regard.

You were talking about foreign investment, Mr. Chairman, through you

to the member. Well, last night — I don't think you were in the House —

I did explain one of the problems we have with industry in British

Columbia and, indeed, in all Canada. That is that the governments seem

to siphon off the majority of the money so that companies don't have

that cash available to develop new plants and to develop the new

technology which we are going to have to have, particularly in western

Canada. The industries in central Canada are established. Their plants

are built, and they can carry on because they're not faced with the

high cost of construction. They're faced with the same high cost of

technology improvement, but they have their plants — they're in place —

and they're not faced with the high costs we are here in British

Columbia.

It's the same with providing our infrastructure, and I went into this last night, if you'd care to read it in Hansard .

With regard to the lumber industry, there can be new technology brought

into the lumber industry, and I don't know what our taxation policy is

going to be. As you know we're waiting for the Pearse report. But I do

want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, that all

departments of this government are working together to formulate

policies. It is not a case of isolation, with the department of

forestry going out and making isolated decisions with regard to

forestry policy or with regard to economic development. We won't see

various departments running off in their own direction, which has been

the case in the past.

We're trying to work together so that all departments have an impact

on the economic development of this province. As I stated last night in

your absence, that's why we haven't finished our policy paper yet.

We're not complete; we're still doing some research on it to find the

parameters. We don't want to just come out and say, "Well, it's going

to be this," until we really do some research on it.

I do want to assure the member that all departments of this

government are working together. All of the revenue-producing

departments are working together to formulate policies which will be

good. Some of them may seem tough for the immediate future. That's the

risk we have to take. We have to bite that bullet.

We are looking at the long-term policies that will help the whole

province. As I said last night, the children who are in school are

entitled to enter a strong economy, the same one that we have enjoyed

for the past 20 years. I think they are entitled to that and we must

see they have that, as well as taking care of the environment and other

aspects.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Just one short

question to the Minister of Economic Development: could the minister

tell me whether or not there is any programme within the Department of

Economic Development for the employment of students this year — either

university or high school students? I would appreciate knowing whether

there is a programme and how many students may be hired in that

department.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the past Minister of Labour

seems to be very, very concerned about this summer-work programme. I

certainly am not going to get into a lengthy debate on it, but this

department doesn't hire that many people. I understand we have about 10

that we will be hiring, but we do not have an extensive programme, and

I don't think we have ever had in the past.

MR. KING: I'm not looking for debate, just an answer. Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm just very interested in

the curiosity that the ex-Minister of Labour has for this particular

programme. I'm looking forward to maybe some debate during the Minister

of Labour's estimates.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I really couldn't

believe the Minister of Economic Development's statements on the need

for higher returns for oil in order to encourage the oil companies to

explore in those — difficult areas of the north. It sounds like he's

been sucked in by the propaganda of the oil companies, that they

require exorbitant profits in order to take

part in exploration in the

northern areas of the world and in very difficult areas of the world.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Like hook, line and sinker.

[ Page 1507 ]

MR. SKELLY: But the fact is that they've not been using the

money for that purpose. They've been using the money to acquire control

over other energy sources — to corner the market on things like coal

and to even corner the market on things like geothermal energy in

California. They haven't been exploring that much for oil at all, and

their profits haven't been used that much for oil exploration.

There was an announcement in the paper recently that the Mobil Oil

Co., using their increased profits, was taking over the Marcore

corporation — not exactly an energy company, Mr. Minister; Marcore owns

Montgomery Ward, the great retail sales organization in the States. Not

a single new job was created as a result of that increase in oil

profits. They simply moved in to corner the market on a retail industry

in the United States by taking over the Montgomery Ward corporation.

So if the member says that increases in profits are required, or

increase in oil prices are required to allow those huge oil companies

to increase their exploration, I think he's been sucked in by the

propaganda of those companies. All they're doing is diversifying their

industry, concentrating their economic control over the world.

I don't know if the member reads Fortune

magazine or not, but within the last few years, even during the period

of so-called oil shortage and energy shortage, Exxon corporation, which

was one of maybe the top 10 corporations on the Fortune

list of 500, moved up to No. 1 during a period of economic shortage.

Their profits increased so drastically that they now exceed General

Motors as the largest corporation in the world, in terms of sales and

profits.

At least the former B.C. government insisted that money gleaned from

increase in gas prices would be returned to the gas companies in the

form of exploration credits, that the work the gas companies did in the

form of exploration would be returned to them by the government in the

form of credits rather than simply allowing them the increase in price

to spend on mergers and agglomerations or to take over other industries.

So I think that minister really has been sucked in by the propaganda

of the oil companies. I hope he doesn't expect a group like this to

believe that type of propaganda.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): He used to stick his tongue on a steel fence in the winter. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Really, Mr. Chairman, the main point of what I

was going to say today has to do with the minister's avowed pursuit of

federal moneys. Last night he said that he had found a little blue book

in his office, one of the last remaining things in his office, that

told him a little bit about the access to the federal Department of

Regional Economic Expansion funds, and I'd like to pursue this just for

a few minutes.

I have some brief comments to make to the minister, relating to the

problems experienced in communities in my riding — the communities of

Tofino, Ucluelet and Bamfield on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

The total population of these communities is about 2,000 people.

As a result of the creation of Pacific Rim National Park.... Back in

1966 the member will probably recall that the previous Social Credit

government entered into an agreement between the federal government and

the provincial government to set up the west coast national park which

was later renamed the Pacific Rim Park. As the result of a tremendous

influx of tourists as a result of the creation of that park there has

been a tremendous pressure on local services in those small communities

of Tofino, Ucluelet and Bamfield, a tremendous impact on the

infrastructure, sewer, water, solid waste disposal, this type of thing.

Now the former Social Credit government had promised to do an

economic study of the area. They didn't deliver that promise, one of

the many promises they didn't deliver. But under the previous Minister

of Economic Development we did provide funds for that study through the

Department of Travel Industry, through the Department of Economic

Development, and through the local regional district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SKELLY: The Canadian government office of travel also

participated. The report was done by A.V. Gray Management Science Ltd.

The figures projected for increase in tourism between 1971 and 1981

were as follows. They recorded 100,000 people per year visiting that

area in 1971. It was expected to increase to approximately 400,000 by

1981 and 800,000 by 1991. That's into an area where the total

population of those communities is approximately 2,000. We can

anticipate an increase in visitors to 800,000 into a city that has a

present population of 2,000 in community total.

The Pacific Rim National Park figures, which are not very accurate

because they record local traffic, indicate that in 1973 total vehicles

passing through the park were 405,000 carrying an estimated 1.2 million

people; in 1974 total vehicles 423,000, carrying 1.26 million people;

in 1975, 396,000 vehicles carrying 1.179 million people. So there is a

tremendous impact from tourism on that very sparsely populated area.

There is a real problem experienced by these small communities in

providing for that great influx of tourists during the period of, say,

60 to 90 days

[ Page 1508 ]

during each summer. Of course, these statistics

don't take into account the fact of the Social Credit government

attempts to scuttle the Marguerite . They don't take into effect

the increase in ferry rates. Doubling the ferry rates should cut down

the tourism in that area a fair amount and decrease the amount of money

the tourists will be spending in that area. They don't take into

account other factors like the exorbitant increase in car insurance

rates and other factors which will affect the number of visitors to

that area. So many factors have intervened that will change the

projected figures in the A.V. Gray report, but still the impact on the

area is going to be dramatic. I'm wondering just what the minister

plans to do to assist these communities in relieving the impact of

tourism over the next years between 1976 and 1991.

Just to give you an example of the impact on water distribution,

between 1975 and 1991 the demand on water services is expected to

increase by about 300 per cent. Need for sewage disposal is expected to

double. The Gray report estimated that capital expenditures on water,

sewer systems, solid waste disposal, roads, other infrastructure

developments, are expected to cost in the neighbourhood of $15 million.

This is for — remember, Mr. Minister — for an area that has a

population of 2,000 people and a very small assessment. They aren't

able to raise the amount of taxes required to pay for that

infrastructure development that is needed as a result of the creation

by the previous Social Credit government of Pacific Rim National Park.

In addition to the $15 million capital development required there's

something like $300,000 to $1.2 million in recurring annual expenditure

to maintain this infrastructure development. Certainly the 2,000

taxpayers of the west coast communities can't be expected to pay that

amount.

Part of these costs were due to increase in those communities as a

result of the growth of the tourist industry, but as time goes on the

vast majority of demand on infrastructure is going to be related to the

tourist industry itself and demands on water, sewer systems, roads et

cetera by tourists during a 60- to 90-day period each year. So the

minister will realize that it is impossible for small communities like

Tofino and Ucluelet to pay for the tremendous cost of those services.

Under the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk), we

were investigating with the local government, with the National Parks

branch and with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion a

DREE subagreement to cover that area and to provide some of the basic

infrastructure services.

I'd just like to read some memos between Mr. Meredith of the

Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Mr. Peel. This is from a

letter of February 3, 1975:

"Further action would consider the desirability and

possibility of establishing a DREE subagreement in the Tofino-Clayoquot

area. Pre-feasibility engineering studies would be a desirable

prerequisite. These matters are now receiving attention at the deputy

minister level."

[Mr. Lauk in the chair.]

Also, in March, 1975, a letter again from Mr. Meredith, department

economist to Mr. Asher, secretary-treasurer of the regional district.

"There are no regional assistance programmes in

operation at this time which are applicable to your request. However,

we are presently investigating and developing federal-provincial

regional development subagreements which in the future will be

implemented under the general development agreement. In particular we

are placing considerable emphasis on programmes which address community

infrastructural requirements. Discussions with DREE with respect to the

scope and possible means of implementation of various assistance

programmes are underway."

Under the New Democratic Party those investigations were being

carried on; those discussions with the federal government were being

carried on. The Department of Travel Industry was involved; the

minister's department was involved. The federal and local authorities

and the National Parks branch had formed a commission. I'm wondering

just in view of the minister's statement that he is actively going to

pursue Department of Regional Economic Expansion funds for

infrastructure development just what he intends to do and what the

progress has been in the Tofino-Ucluelet area where those

infrastructure funds are so desperately required.

There have been programmes in Fort Nelson in the minister's area where....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not mine.

MR. SKELLY: In the general area, where DREE moneys and

Economic Development moneys have been used to improve water systems,

I'm wondering if the minister is willing to expand those types of

programmes to the west coast where they are desperately needed — needed

at least as much as they are in the northern part of the province.

So in view of the minister's promise that he is going to actively

pursue those federal funds — federal Department of Regional Economic

Expansion funds — I wonder what he is doing to assist the

[ Page 1509 ]

Tofino-Ucluelet area at the present time. When can

we expect the subagreement between the federal government and the

provincial government to cover that area? When can we expect to see

some infrastructure development take place in the Tofino-Ucluelet area?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would be most happy to

respond to the member's comments. I'm glad to see that it's a problem

now. I don't know why, Mr. Chairman, you didn't do something about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I do want to say that yes, the DREE

programme is all right with this government. The DREE programme is all

right with the federal DREE people. But we are getting no cooperation

whatsoever from Parks Canada. Now we are not going to stop there. We'll

pursue this with all vigour because we realize the problem there.

I don't want to be vindictive or anything but I just have to think

that it's another case of Ottawa sort of..."Well, it's away out there

on the west coast and they won't bother us too much." If this were some

other area in Canada — they've done it in other areas in Canada — I'm

sure that we would be moving fairly swiftly to do it. We have to pursue

this with a great deal of vigour. We have to deal with the federal

authorities and make them stand up and live up to their

responsibilities.

I can't tell you exactly, Mr. Member, through the Chairman to you.

I'd love to say: "Yes, in two months we'll have a DREE agreement and we

will be moving in...." I can't tell you that and you know I can't tell

you that, as much as I'd like to. But I do say that it is on our list

of DREE priorities. We will be pursuing it; we will be pursuing it with

vigour because we realize the problem. We realize the problem was there

for the last three and a half years. I maybe shouldn't say that. I'll

sit down now.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: Really, I think this is something that the

minister should take a little more seriously. The last government did

pursue the problem. They did meet with local authorities; they did meet

with the federal government.

It is unfortunate that under the National Parks statutes they are

not entitled to spend money outside of park boundaries. It's a matter

of some concern to the people in the Tofino-Ucluelet area when they see

$3 million and $4 million a year being spent within the National Park

boundaries eliminating campsites, eliminating recreational

opportunities that previously existed in that area, and yet not a

nickel is being spent on infrastructure development outside of park

boundaries.

I personally think it was a mistake on the part of the previous

government to get involved in that national park agreement. It was a

giveaway. We had to pay 50 per cent of the acquisition costs of the

land out there, and yet the federal government won't spend a nickel

outside of the park boundary. So I don't think we can wait until the

federal government is going to change their statutes allowing them to

spend money for park purposes outside the park boundaries, and I don't

think it's desirable anyway.

I am not asking the minister if the water system is going to be

constructed next year. It was needed last year, But I would like some

assurance that he's going to pursue this with the vigour that he's

talking about, because it is important. I mentioned that 100,000 people

visited that area in 1971, and there's a population of 2,000 out there.

We've got a very small hospital that can't even hope to accommodate

some of the emergencies that develop in the park when tourists are

injured out there. We've got a water system in Tofino that's shut down.

Overnight they have to shut down the water system. They have a fish

plant and a fishing economy out there. It will cost a quarter of a

million dollars to put a water system into a town where the population

is 600. We need urgent assistance from the minister to pursue DREE

money for that area.

I am hoping that possibly I can get in touch with the minister after

his estimates are over so we can have a meeting in his office, as we

used to with the previous minister. I hope that we can meet more

frequently than you do with the farmers....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Come on up. The door's open.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I intend to follow up on that offer. I

intend to be up in your office as soon as possible after your estimates

are over and I hope we can get something solved with the federal

government within the first year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Aye.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

have only a very brief plea to make at this time. It's an annual plea

on behalf of the statistical and economic analysis part of the

minister's department. If I look at the estimate detail properly I

think I see an increase in that

section for this year. I'm just

mentioning to the minister now that when we get to that specific vote I

would very much appreciate his being in possession of the exact details

on how the statistical branch is proceeding.

[ Page 1510 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to bring to

the attention of the committee, as I am sure we are all aware, that the

minister's deputy minister is here and welcome him. He is an excellent

deputy minister.

I hope that doesn't destroy his career. (Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It did yours.

MR. LAUK: Don't attack civil servants, Madam.

Mr. Chairman, I was also pleased to see that the minister promoted

Dr. Rae, who is another excellent public servant, and I am sure that

the advice that the minister receives from these first-class

individuals will be well received and acted upon. If the minister

listens to that advice exclusively he'll be all right, but once in a

while he stands in the House and he gives us his philosophy, and that's

when he starts to fumble. If he only listened to the excellent advice

of his civil servants, he wouldn't make many mistakes. But we can't

rely on that and, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the minister will make

many mistakes.

I noticed in a publication some months ago when a reporter was

inquiring of the new cabinet — the coalition cabinet — what kind of

reading material they enjoyed, the minister said: "Well, I read the

Bank Credit Analyst." I suppose if one can describe the Bank Credit

Analyst for its interest value, it would be sort of like a Presbyterian

publication: very dry and gray; very good, though, very excellent.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend any Presbyterians by saying that it didn't have any colour.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Bank Credit Analyst that he was reading — because I followed that very carefully....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Unexpurgated?

MR. LAUK: Unexpurgated. One edition only. Not like the budget

speech. It predicted a worldwide depression lasting for upwards of 20

years. Now if the hon. minister is that impressed with the BCA's

predictions....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the minister said he was impressed with this

publication, and I had heard through my spies that he did indeed read

it, because they passed his office one day and the, light was shining

on him as he was reading this publication and his lips were moving.

Four hours later, he got through the 10 pages. He had his dictionary

beside him.

Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, I

don't mean to be rude to the hon. minister, but if he accepts that kind

of depression mentality, what he has also indicated here to the

committee this morning is that he accepts another kind of mentality

that assists depressions — that not only does not guard against them,

but ushers them in. He talks about the need for oil companies to have

vast amounts of profits because only in that way can the little people

— I'm assuming this is what he means — enjoy some of the wealth of the

jobs that are created and the tax revenue that eventually will come out

of the personal pockets, the personal income taxes of the province and

of the country. This was the philosophy of an administration that

ushered in the last Depression, R.B. Bennett; evidence has indicated in

our historical texts today that he was the most right-wing politician

ever to lead a national government. He was against taxing the large

corporations and the multinationals, he said, because that would only

lead to a further worsening of the Depression. And they did; they

alleviated the tax situation for large companies, and the Depression

carried on and the little people suffered more. It didn't work then;

it's not going to work now.

I think that a system of tax credits and incentives for specific

exploration purposes may be intelligent and it may work, but not a

wholesale sellout to the multinational oil companies. As Tommy Douglas

explained to Mr. Gillespie in the federal house, he said: "What are you

going to do about this situation? What about the public ownership of

gas and oil in Canada?" Gillespie said: "The hon. member doesn't

realize that it takes a lot of luck and a lot of investment to find oil

and gas." Tommy Douglas said: "Well, what are you running, a government

or a lottery?" Gillespie replied: "Oh, the hon. member doesn't

understand. You don't just sink a hole in the ground and get oil and

gas." Then Tommy Douglas stood up and said: "Well, I know that the oil

companies don't sink. They sink lots of holes to try and find oil and

gas, but they also put out lines for suckers, and they seem to have got

one in the hon. minister." (Laughter.)

MR. KING: I think he bit, Gary.

MR. LAUK: What about conservation? You know, the evidence

stacks up against the multinational oil companies in terms of

manipulating oil supply and oil consumption. The source is finite, Mr.

Minister.... Oh, there he goes. (Laughter.) Whenever I get close, he

rushes off. Well, perhaps the deputy minister can make a few notes,

because I'll get on to some serious matters now that he's left and he

maybe can reply, through you, Mr. Deputy Minister. (Laughter.)

I wanted to talk just a moment about the railway. If you get a map

outlining the coal supplies or the coal deposits that are probable and

expected in

[ Page 1511 ]

reserve in this province and in Alberta, one of the

most striking things on that map is the corridor of coal deposits going

down the Monkman Pass towards the Alberta border, I think somewhere

near Gregg River. That's one of the maps I didn't have in my basement

when I looked in it the other day. It connects at a point, Mr.

Chairman, remarkably enough, at which we can see the Alberta resource

railway touching the border of British Columbia. I think that it would

be wise indeed for this government and this minister to immediately

instruct the BCR to survey a line down the Monkman Pass that will

eventually service all of those coal deposits and connect up with the

Alberta resource railway. This was raised in discussion with Alberta

cabinet ministers in the past. They were receptive.

The minister is now back in the House.

MR. KING: He's skulking back. I thought he'd peeled.

MR. LAUK: I just mentioned, Mr. Minister, the idea that you

look at a map of British Columbia where all of the coal deposits are

marked out. It's one of the maps I didn't take with me; it's with you.

You have a look at it. If you look at the coal deposits on the Alberta

side, you can draw your finger down the Monkman Pass, or near there,

right down to the Alberta border.

If a BCR line were built down that pass to connect up with the Alberta resource railway....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You said that last night.

MR. LAUK: I want to repeat it again because you didn't say

anything about it. I want to ask the minister whether he's committed to

the idea and what he's going to do about it. I would suggest that he

immediately instruct BCR surveyors to go in there and survey that line

and immediately set up a continuous series of discussions with the

Alberta government so that that line will connect up to the

Alberta resource railway. That way, you can serve the great coal

deposits of both provinces, east and west, giving you a competitive

advantage over the CNR and the CPR, a bargaining point for railcars for

the BCR, for freight rates, for the Ashcroft-Clinton line — all of

those things. I ask the minister to comment on that.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. The other point that I wish to ask the minister on, as soon as I get his attention, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm listening.

MR. LAUK: Oh, good. It's Hat Creek coal. One of the studies

that were embarked upon under the NDP administration was an analysis of

the Hat Creek coal deposit with respect not only to its thermal value

for the production of electricity, but also the aluminum that could be

obtained from the fly ash. There were initial discussions with Reynolds

and Alcan Aluminum under the NDP administration and there was going to

be a study as to the economic viability of using the aluminum from the

fly ash at Hat Creek instead of bauxite in aluminum plants within the

province. That would lead, hopefully, to an aluminum rolling mill, a

secondary phase of aluminum manufacture in the province. I hope the

minister is still continuing that programme embarked upon under my

administration.

The third question I would like to ask is that I was discussing with

NKK and Kaiser and other coal producers and buyers the idea of private

industry and government — two levels, the federal and provincial —

contributing to a coal institute of advanced studies and technology in

the use of coal. This has been a little pet project of mine, Mr.

Chairman, and I hope the minister continues on with it. A coal

institute is a great idea. It may make British Columbia the capital of

the world as far as coal use is concerned, bringing all kinds of

scientists from Germany and Japan and so on, and studying the use of

coal: thermal purposes, gasification, petro-chemical, all kinds of

possibilities there.

While the minister is thinking up an answer to that one, would he

tell me where that $5 million for the study of the northeast coal

project is? I can't find it in his estimates. Could he give me a

breakdown? Because I have to ask some minister. It was mentioned in

your statement to Bob McMurray. I think it's an excellent idea, but I

would like to know where that breaks down and where the money is coming

from, and who's doing what to whom.

The fourth question is a more serious one. I'm sorry that the

Minister of Mines, forests, water resources and advertising is not in

the House today because there seems to be a tremendous conflict in

policy between the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of

Mines. He's talking about eliminating royalties, that it's discouraging

mining, and it's a negative type of impact, a negative tax, and that it

loses jobs, and the rest of the treadmill of trivia that we've heard

since the election and during.

On the other hand, we see the Minister of Economic Development in

the newspaper the other day talking to Bob McMurray. I don't like to

quote this

article too often but it's the only one. The Minister

doesn't talk much but then again neither did Cardinal Richelieu. It

said in the back, he says: "While the policy has yet to be developed on

how much coal royalties will be, the government is considering a user

fee to be paid by mining companies to pay for townsites and their

amenities, which would be established by government." Well, I couldn't

agree more. I support that concept or a concept of

[ Page 1512 ]

increased royalties — either way — to pay for the

tremendous infrastructures of costs that are going to be required to

eventually produce and develop the coal resource in the northeast of

the province.

To argue in favour of eliminating the royalty, let alone increasing it at this

stage, is a negation of the concept that the minister put forward in the press.

Now I wonder if you can talk to that young minister. You're the power behind

the throne. You're the eminence grise. You're the person that pulls

the in strings. Take that young minister aside, get his mind off advertising

for a moment, and talk to him about mineral royalties and user fees. You and

I both know, being men of the world, that you can't build the hospitals,

the schools, provide the transportation and the water systems and sewerage and

so on, and recreational facilities, without money. Tell the Minister of Mines

that money doesn't grow on trees. He may think that a thousand dollars is

just peanuts but we're not talking about just a thousand dollars on an advertising

campaign. We're talking about millions of dollars, hundreds of millions

of dollars, with respect to infrastructure costs.

You know, the resource companies can afford to pay their fair share

of that cost. I'm delighted that the minister is discussing the concept

of a user fee. I hope it's not just a token gesture, not just a payoff

or a lip service to this concept. Make them pay their fair share of

costs, because there are resources, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

minister; there are resources.

Just look, for example to Kaiser Resources. In 1969 Kaiser Resources

signed a $1 billion deal with the Japanese steel interests to export

our coal from the Kootenay region. Kaiser was originally to sell the

coal to them at $12.85 per ton. By July 1972, this price had increased

to $16.88 per ton. They are now getting $52 per ton and shipped

1,207,000 tons in the first quarter of 1976.

In the last two years of the Social Credit government, 1971 and

1972, the total royalty collected on coal was $237,000 — that would not

even pay for the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Waterland'

s) advertising

campaign.

In the three NDP years, 1973, 1974 and 1975, the total royalty and

land tax collection on coal was $13,482,931.27 — not bad, $13.4

million. The coal royalty in 1972 was 25 cents per ton. The NDP raised

it to $1.50, and we had announced we would be increasing it to $2.50 a

ton — if we had been returned to government. The present rate of export

is approximately 4 million tons a year; this would net the government

$10 million this year for royalty alone, at $2.50 per ton. We start to

make inroads on that infrastructure cost, Mr. Chairman.

Kaiser Resources Ltd. in 1975 almost tripled its profit; in 1974 the

net profit was $24.1 million; in 1975 its net profit was $71.2 million.

That's net profit! That staggers the mind, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boggles.

MR. LAUK: It boggles the mind, Mr. Chairman — $71.2 million.

In the first quarter of 1976 Kaiser's profits increased 55 per cent

over the first quarter of 1975. In the face of these facts all you hear

from the coalition government is talk of more concessions to the mining

companies, and supported by the coalition government's advertising

campaign.

The Premier says that coal development will be a basis for the next economic boom in B.C. He said that in the Vancouver Sun

on February 28, 1976. That's what he said — that it'll be the next

economic boom, and that royalties on coal must be increased to ensure

that the public, not the mining companies, will be the main

beneficiaries of this boom.

It's clear from that little bit of research I did in the morning

that the resource companies of this province can support the

infrastructure costs in the northeast. I hope the minister, as the

member for South Peace River, doesn't go to Dawson Creek and say to

them that they are going to pay the cost, or go to Chetwynd and say to

them that they are going to pay the cost, and that small population

will be burdened once again with land taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,

increased medicare costs and ICBC rates. Don't, don't do that, Mr.

Member, because, finally, you may be turfed out of your seat by the

good people of Dawson Creek.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes! The minister says I should be so lucky. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Why was the deputy pounding his desk? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I think you will get the support of the opposition

parties with respect to this coal development — wholehearted and

sincere support, because we are British Columbians first; we play

political politics second.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: I know the concept of being a British Columbian is

a rather novel idea for the coalition government. There's the member

for Maui, there's the member for Alberta and there's the member for

Ontario — it's a little bit unique for them to understand the concept

of being a British Columbian, but it is important and I hope they join

with us in this tremendous stride and progression forward. But you're

doing it wrong, if you'll pardon the grammar; you're doing it wrong,

Mr. Minister.

[ Page 1513 ]

You said a user fee. Talk to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) — get his mind off advertising; sit him down. You're the

Cardinal Richelieu of this government...it says so. It says so — a

distinguished journalist has your picture here. There he is. He's the

man behind the throne, pulling the strings. You sit down with the

Minister of Mines and explain to him: "Look, Tom, old boy, the resource

companies of this province have to pay some of their share. I can't ask

my people in the South Peace River to pay the cost."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'm sure you would prefer I was in Hollywood rather than be here and needling you a bit.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You'd prefer I was someplace else; I know that, but

I'll be around for a while. I'll be around for a while making sure you

are doing a good job, the job I know you're capable of doing, Mr.

Chairman, to the minister.

So there are four questions I have to ask: comment on the railroad

through Monkman Pass, linking up with the Alberta resource railway; the

Hat Creek coal situation and the study into aluminum as used for

aluminum rolling plants and raw material for aluminum smelters; the

coal-institute concept; and have you continued the discussions I

started with NKK and Kaiser and others? Also: what is your attitude

towards the user fees or royalties with respect to infrastructural

costs, and what percentage of the user fee and royalty do you see in

taking up that tremendous cost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond briefly to some of the subjects that the first member for Vancouver Centre brought up.

Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here thinking how much easier my job

would be if I had all of this information that the minister has stored

in his basement. So much of the things he is talking about....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When we start talking about mineral

royalties and coal royalties, all of his attitudes and those letters

that he felt were so secret are now mouldering in his damp basement.

MR. LAUK: Come on over and have a look. Bring your overalls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But they're there, all those secret documents

that he didn't want the Hon. R.A. Williams to see, that he was writing these

nasty mining companies — he hid them! Maybe some day I'm going to have the

opportunity to have a look at them.

MR. LAUK: You'll have that opportunity,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But it's going to take time. Justice is

sometimes slow, but in the end, Mr. Chairman, justice will not only be

done, but will appear to be done as well.

Maybe if the member would dig in his files and give me that

correspondence that he has with the Alberta resources railroad and with

the government of Alberta we can continue on where he left off. But

that's the problem, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK: Ask your deputy. He knows all about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Everything that I've had to do, I've had to start from the ground up.

MR. LAUK: Aren't you talking to your deputy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, the ground up.

Every time somebody makes a phone call it takes me an hour to get

the answer because I have to send over to the BCR office or uptown to

our Toronto Dominion Bank office, or over to the Vancouver office, and

that costs the taxpayers money — $9 every time something comes over in

a rush from one of those offices.

I'll let that go for the time being, but we shall pursue that with

great vigour at a later date. I want to tell the member that we will

take a look at shoving the railway south to link up with that Alberta

resource railway, but I want to tell the member that that's a long way

away.

I expect, Mr. Chairman, some announcements in the very near future,

probably even maybe the middle of next week about more exploration on

some of those southern properties, maybe the Saxon property. I don't

know. I'm always waiting. Maybe some announcements will come. They have

to be proven up and we're not going to put the cart before the horse.

When those properties in the south end of that great, vast coal

resource stretching from the Alberta border right through as far as the

eye can see or the plane can fly in northern British Columbia, when

those south resources are proven up.... That takes time. There hasn't

been any work done yet. But I say maybe an announcement will be coming.

Now because people have faith in this great government again, maybe

they're going to spend some millions of dollars in there and prove up

that particular coal resource in the south known as the Saxon property.

Pay attention. Watch the newspapers

[ Page 1514 ]

next week. Maybe you'll see some announcements.

MR. LAUK: Send up Arthur Weeks. He'll tell you whether it is all right or not.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell the member in response to

Hat Creek that he must have been talking without this side of his mouth

today because you know the announcement was made about Hat Creek.

MR. LAUK: You're talking through your hat.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're going to waste all that coal and

they're going to do nothing. But Hydro's going to go in there and

pollute the air and generate hydro and waste our natural resources when

we have other resources.

But I wanted to know....

MR. LAUK: You're a dam government! All you build is dams!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, let this

go firmly and solidly in the records of this legislative debate. That

government over there when they were over here, that opposition over

there when they were over here, I've heard them talk about preserving

our natural resources because they're irreplaceable. We talk about an

energy crisis, and what were they going to do? They're going to take

hydrocarbons and generate hydro power.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I just have to tell you this because I fly over that great north country....

MR. LAUK: Do your arms get tired?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And when I look at it, and I see that

great Liard River flowing into the Arctic Ocean, every minute that goes

by millions and millions of BTU of energy is wasted every day.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that great river will flow

and flow long after you and I are gone. It will take with it every day,

every minute, every hour, millions and millions of BTU of energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you resign?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's BTU?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: British thermal units. I go over that

great area and I see going into the Arctic Ocean energy and I get

excited about it because it doesn't waste a natural resource.

MR. LAUK: It just kills the fish.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I haven't see too many fish.... No,

no. Mr. Chairman, we always have to get a bunch of motherhood in. I

don't think there has ever been a fish caught in the Liard River that I

know of. Every spring we talk about pollution. Every spring that Liard

River is so dirty and polluted by Mother Nature with sticks and stones

and silt and sand you can't even see it!

MR. LAUK: But names will never hurt me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I say, there it is. They were going to

burn up our natural resources — saying out of one side of their mouth

"we want to preserve them," yet going full-tilt on the other to get rid

of them and burn them up.

We're going to take a look at that great deposit at Hat Creek and

we're going to determine what is the absolute best use for the benefit

of the people of British Columbia. We're not going to be politically

expedient — not at all. I want to tell you I look forward to pilot

projects going in there to determine what the best use is for that

coal. No, my friend, Mr. Chairman, don't worry. We will be prudent with

the use of natural resources in British Columbia.

Technology — yes, absolutely. We will work with the province of

Alberta — not in isolation just so we can say we did it and spend the

taxpayers' dollars. We'll work with any country in the world — any

company in the world — because there has been some done. Why should the

little province of British Columbia start with $2 billion, with two

million people, spend those hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

thousands of dollars that we will need to develop that technology if we

start from scratch? No, we will cooperate with people who have already

started on the technology. We will bring in experts in the field, Mr.

Chairman. We will use their technology. We may even let some of the

richer nations of the world develop the technology. We will not stop

our own resource people from working but we will also work with other

people in the world.

As a matter of fact, I have had discussions with the western

industry ministers; as a matter of fact, we're talking about

cooperating on technology development in western Canada for some of our

resources.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but we're moving. You talk, we act; you talk, we act, Mr. Chairman. They talk, we act; they talk, we act.

MR. LAUK: What action?

[ Page 1515 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is the last final word

that I want to say. Last night that ex-Minister of Economic Development

(Mr. Lauk) stood on the floor of this Legislature and said: "I want

that minister over there to tell the people of this province the great

tremendous cost it is going to take those companies to bring that

northeast coal on stream. I want to tell the people of the tremendous

high cost of today's inflation and the cost of everything." Today he

says: "Tell the people the millions of dollars those coal companies are

going to make out of developing that coal."

MR. LAUK: Wrong again.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what happened to him last

night while he was sleeping, but he said last night: "You tell the

people of this province the tremendous amount of millions of dollars

that they're going to have to put into that development."

MR. LAUK: You're confused.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, read it in Hansard .

MR. LAUK: No, no. You're confused.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not confused — you're confused. But I can understand that member being confused, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Will you resign your seat if I didn't say it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can understand that member being confused because he doesn't know who his leader is.

MR. LAUK: Will you resign your seat if I didn't say it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now the member wants me to resign. He

knows what a tremendous loss that would be to the province of British

Columbia if I did. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's funny.

MR. LAUK: No one's indispensable.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Particularly.

MR. LAUK: Even Cardinal Richelieu wasn't indispensable.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to take a look. As a matter of

fact, while you were saying this great project was going ahead, we are

in the planning stage so that when it does go ahead we will know what

the different costs will be. We will be able to go to these coal

companies and say: "Look, these are our costs."

MR. LAUK: You're stalling. Why are you stalling?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not stalling at all! I want to tell

you we're working! We're working! We're working! We're working! People

are in the field right now. They're checking and they're studying.

MR. LAUK: So far you're looking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, we're not. We're in the planning stages. We're finding out where the....

MR. LAUK: You're flying and you're looking. You're doing nothing; you're stalling.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's impossible to argue with this member, Mr. Chairman, because he doesn't want to listen. I want to tell the member that....

MR. LAUK: You're the nerve centre of this government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He gets on my nerves, too, but I'll try and restrain myself.

The member asked a question. If you look under the Department of

Highways, you will find money. If you look under the Environment and

Land Use Committee secretariat, you will find money. If you look under

the Department of Labour, you will find money. If you look under the

Department of Municipal Affairs, you will find money. If you look under

the Department of Mines, you will find money. If you look under the

Department of Transport, you will find money. There is even some money

in the Department of Economic Development; that vote will be coming up

very shortly.

We put our money where our mouth was. We're going to go ahead and we're going to do something, not just talk about it.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. What numbers are they?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Numbers?

MR. LAUK: Yes, we vote numbers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have to find out. I'll find out the exact votes.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

speak to the minister, through you, and pursue the question of the IPA

studies, and perhaps we could elicit, if not a definite answer, at

least some

[ Page 1516 ]

kind of a sense of direction as to where we are

going, particularly with regard to my area or to the southeastern part

of the province in general. As for the IPA studies, we were told the

reason that we needed these studies was because we couldn't even begin

to negotiate with the federal government for DREE funds until such time

as these studies were complete because there was no point in signing

agreements with Ottawa until we knew exactly what we wanted and where

the money was going to go.

During the last 15 years, looking at the parts of Canada that have

received significant DREE funds, it has been exemplified time and time

again that there's been money spent which has in fact, in many cases,

gone down the tube. It has had very little lasting benefit to the

regions that it went to. What we really want is a businesslike approach

to getting these funds for British Columbia. That was the policy of the

former government and I gather it's the policy of the present

government, but under the guise of this we have also had no action.

We were given to believe in our area that we were almost ready to go

last fall. The election came and the administration changed. We are

still told that we are almost ready to go. I am wondering if these

things have been completed and they have kind of been put aside for six

months in order that, when they are trotted out, it won't appear as

though it was the result of work done by the former government. And

that's all right, Mr. Chairman, providing that that, in fact, is the

case and we are going to see some infrastructure agreements under the

IPA studies, or following the IPA studies, relative to my area.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as the minister well knows, because I have met

with him in his office on this...and I must say he's right when the

says his door is open — I have met with him along with representatives

from various organizations in my riding, and it has turned out that he

does have an open mind and he's given us a lot of sympathy. But what we

really don't need is sympathy; what we need is some action. We are

certainly not asking the Department of Economic Development to do all

our work for us.

I think the minister is well aware that the part of the province

that I represent is pretty well set up already in terms of the social

elements of infrastructure. We have good hospitals; we have good

schools; we are well supplied with post-secondary educational and

technological training. In fact, we have 300 apprentices in my riding

right now taking trades training under various programmes of the

province and the Department of Manpower. We have a good labour force,

which is perhaps the most important when we're talking about economic

development and expansion. Perhaps even more important than that, we

have an excellent technological and managerial community within my

riding. In fact, as the minister knows, there is metallurgical

engineering and technology done in Trail which is exported to the rest

of the world. It's not just in British Columbia and Canada; Cominco

does this kind of work on a worldwide basis.

We have land as well, Mr. Minister, that's available. The problem is

that it's not serviced for economic development. In a time when

serviced land for economic development runs at $250,000 to $300,000 an

acre in the lower mainland where a great many of the people are

complaining about growth — you have parts of the province that want to

see growth on a controlled and reasonable basis.

These are places where land is available at very reasonable rates,

where energy is available at reasonable rates through the West Kootenay

Power and Light Co. — I am hoping that the government and B.C. Hydro do

not take that company over and put our electrical energy rates up — and

where natural gas is available at low rates through the Inland Natural

Gas Co., and I am certainly hoping that B.C. Hydro does not take any

action in that regard, which is opposed to the interests of the

southern part of British Columbia. We have all this going for us and

yet, to this date, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, there has

not been a single referral to that area of even a prospect from the

Department of Economic development under any of the last three

governments of this province. I would hope that the department would

get involved.

You can't tell me, and nor can you tell the people in my riding,

with the growth that has taken place over the last 10 years in this

province, that there would not have been one single manufacturer, with

all that's going for the area, who would not have been the least bit

interested in coming and asking some questions through the Ministry of

Economic Development. There have been many who have been referred to

the area by people doing their own homework, by people going out and

actively soliciting, nationally and internationally, but nothing has

happened through that Ministry.

I would hope that something would happen because this is something

which, as I mentioned earlier, while there are many parts of the

province which are opposed to growth of any kind, in fact there are

some parts which, while they don't want uncontrolled rag-tag growth,

would like to see controlled growth of specific industries in certain

areas. Certainly you would get every cooperation, as you well know,

from municipal groups, from planning groups, from the regional district

and from industry, and even from the local politicians.

So I would hope that rather than simply talk rhetorically in this

House about the fact that DREE money has not come this way, about the

fact that we have been bypassed by the federal government.... I submit,

Mr. Minister, that the southeastern part of

[ Page 1517 ]

British Columbia has, in fact, been bypassed by the

Ministry and by the provincial government as well as by the federal

government. I would agree entirely with your philosophy that you

expressed — in fact, I would add to it — that we certainly don't want

to see handouts or subsidies to industry in British Columbia. An

industry or business which can't stand on its own two feet shouldn't be

here.

What we're looking for is infrastructure agreements, and, as you

well know, the primary thing that we need in the West Kootenays is an

adequate water supply. We've got 100,000 cubic feet per second going

across the border at Waneta of soft, clear water. Yet every community

in my riding is short of a guaranteed supply of water, both in terms of

quantity and quality, and that's primarily what we need.

We need an infrastructure agreement, similar to the one that the

department negotiated last year with the city of Fort Nelson in the

extreme northeastern corner of the province and the federal government,

and whereby it was a three-sevenths, three-sevenths, one-seventh

financial arrangement. That's the kind of thing we would like to see,

that kind of positive action.

I submit, Mr. Minister, that that would not cost the province

anything more than the existing water-sharing agreements would. The

advantage of it, of course, is that the provincial and local commitment

is on a 20-year or 25-year financing arrangement; the federal is a

lump-sum grant right now — which would reduce the user cost in the

local area. Certainly I believe that the returns, both to the province

and to the federal government, in terms of tax dollars and property

taxes, income taxes, corporation taxes and sales taxes over a very few

years — probably less than 10 years — would more than repay any

investment that this province or the federal government may make.

But you are going to have to take the leadership because we know

that Ottawa isn't. You, your department and your ministry are going to

have to take the leadership. If it is simply waiting for a reasonable

period of time to have elapsed since the election so you can take all

the credit for yourself, that's fine. I'll grant you that because my

primary concern is to stabilize and diversify the economy of the

Rossland-Trail area. That is the most important thing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's

concern for his riding, and I share that with him. He visited in my

office with some people from his riding, and I share that concern. I

look forward to getting into your area, Mr. Member, as soon as

possible, taking a first-hand look and meeting again with your

officials.

MR. D'ARCY: I'll see that you're invited.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't really appreciate the remark that

I'm trying to wait long enough to take credit for it. You know that I'm

not that type of an individual, and I really do resent it. I've been

putting in pretty long hours in this job. I don't want to be political,

or I don't want to say that we can't do in four months what you didn't

do in three and a half years.

Strike that from the record, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to say it. (Laughter.)

The study on your area, Mr. Member, is, I understand, just about

ready to go to the Queen's Printer. But I want to warn the member not

to expect, when he gets that study, that it's going to be a solve-all

recommendation. Really what it is is an inventory of opportunities so

we'll know what exists and in what area we can move in your particular

area.

We are in the throes of starting our negotiations. Maybe I've been

remiss, and our department has been remiss, in not moving swifter on

this to get these agreements with Ottawa, but we did have to really

study the situation because once we started on a path, we wanted to

know we were going in the right direction. As I say, there will be no

agreements; it will be direct subsidies to industries in the province

of British Columbia. It will all be for infrastructures and help to

particular areas.

One agreement, if we get it, that will help you in two areas

concerns land. I'm not going to get into details because we haven't

negotiated with Ottawa yet. We haven't finalized them.

MR. D'ARCY: We have the land.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: One will be to help with land, the other

will be with infrastructure, and it will be in an area.... But it has

to be an area where industry is going to go in and put an impost on the

community so we can help them and so that they won't have to bear the

burden.

With regard to your land, I think we might be able to do something

in that area with the development corporation. As I say, I want to get

in and take a took at it. I do appreciate your concern, and I hope that

we can come up with some definite, positive action in that area. But,

again, I can't guarantee anything in that area. I am aware of the

problem; I do want to assist; I do want to help. I will be getting in

there. In the meantime, we are working with Ottawa to get these

agreements drawn up, and which will help in your area in two respects.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up, I certainly

appreciate the minister's remarks, but I would like to make it very

clear to him that I don't want him, or this House, to feel that what is

essentially a very simple situation should be more

[ Page 1518 ]

complicated than it needs to be. As I said in my

remarks, my area is not burdened with a complex series of needs such as

for railroads, highways, airports — any of these sorts of things which

many parts of the province are. These things are already in place. We

can easily zero in right now on one thing and one thing only, and that

is a freshwater system — fresh, clear, soft water, and lots of it.

We've got the source, all we need is the pumping facilities and the

distribution facilities. The local distribution facilities are already

in, in terms of industry, commercial and civic developments.

I'm very interested, though, in the minister's remarks regarding

civic developments and the burdens on communities, because the

Department of Housing has recently completed a study for the city of

Trail involving some benchland which the city wished to develop and put

on the market at cost. In fact, the land value is below cost because a

corporate citizen, Cominco Ltd., very generously was willing to put

that land on the market at below their cost, below its appraised value.

But the problem was the servicing. With the land cost even at below

market value, plus the servicing cost, the value would come to

somewhere between $28,000 and $30,000 a lot. Now, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, you know that the city of Trail simply cannot bear

costs like that, nor can the taxpayers.

If we can get assistance for that kind of development, straight

related to the economic development and industrial development, through

your office or through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I

can assure you that this would be a major feather in your hat.

I would like to point out that the former government, the former,

former Socred government and the coalition government before that has

been promising the world to the Kootenays for years and years and

years. I would submit that nothing positive has happened there, except

what has been done by private endeavour, nothing positive. Certainly I

don't think we can count, apart from flood control, the Columbia River

Treaty as a positive development because it left us with a reduced tax

base, a reduced amount of usable land and no jobs. And the minister is

aware of that.

As I say, I would be most appreciative, in a very non-partisan way,

of anything that his department of this government could do. We're not

looking for handouts, we're not looking for freebies, we're not looking

for massive intervention; we're looking for one thing, a water system.

Secondly, we are looking for help for our municipalities in the event

that they are forced to bring large areas of land and make it available

for detached residential dwellings.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I have been

waiting a long time to just make some very brief comments about the

section 1n the minister's department dealing with the women's economic

branch. But the minister has been filibustering his estimates and it's

taken me a long time to get on my feet. I'm going to be very brief

because I know he's going to make a long speech, but I just want to ask

a couple of questions about it.

Now the previous Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk)

recognized that really the whole business of equality in our community

was tied to one's economic status. In fact, as long as women were

dependent either on their spouses, their parents or the government or

whatever, any talk about equality was really academic. There was never

ever going to be any true equality unless there was an economic kind of

independence that they would experience at the same time. So the

previous Minister of Economic Development, recognizing this, introduced

in his department a

section known as the Women's Economic Rights

Division.

He had to put up a fight to get that

section 1ntroduced, there's not

a question about it, because everyone is trying to run their department

on as little money as possible. Not only did he have to put up a fight

to introduce this, he had to put up a fight to save it. To prevent the

minister getting up and giving me a speech about it, I'm going to tell

him that I already know that. But, in fact, the work done by that

division was so important and so crucial that what I want to do is

express, first of all, my concern for the continuation of that division.

Maybe the minister would like to know a couple of things and a

couple of the ways in which we have used that division over the couple

of years that it has been in existence. There are a number of women,

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, in the minister's own riding

in Peace River who wanted to open small business enterprises. When I

was visiting that riding a couple of years ago they expressed this

concern to me, that they didn't know how to go about doing it. This

really is not one of the things covered in our school system; it's not

one of the things that we know how to do. How do you start a business?

A lot of men inherit their father's business, or they work in a

business as they grow up. It's not a traditional thing that women do.

So these women were referred to the Women's Economic Rights Division

of the minister's department. Workshops were set up in the South Peace

— and I see the minister nodding his head, so he knows — where it was

explained how one goes about setting up a small business, and how one

becomes a good businessperson in terms of running the thing in a

financially viable way.

Another area where this was used extensively was in the area of

crafts. A lot of women do creative things which they can do at home,

whether it is weaving or potting or crochet or whatever, and would

[ Page 1519 ]

like to be able to sell their wares, to be able to

realize some kind of income from this, but didn't quite know how to go

about doing that. Again, I referred these women to the Women's Economic

Rights Division of that department. Again, workshops were set up in how

one goes about going into the business of running a small-craft

establishment.

Right here in Victoria, Circle Crafts is a beautiful example of the

kind of really good work that was done by that division in helping that

group of potters and weavers, some of whom were men, to go into the

business of trying to realize an income from their skills and from

their talents.

So I'm really quite concerned about this division and about its

continuity, especially since the only other access that women had to

this government has been closed to them. I'm referring to the

co-ordinator of the status of women under the Provincial Secretary's

department, which was one of the first things that the Provincial

Secretary did when she took office, the closing down of that office.

Now that was a department where women could apply for funding to

help them in terms of grants. This division, the Women's Economic

Rights Division, is quite different. What you get here is expertise and

advice in how to survive as an independent economic unit, and in a lot

of ways it is much more important and a lot more vital to us than was

the office which was run under the Provincial Secretary's department.

One of the things that the division also did was research. I noticed

as I was going through the terms of reference laid out by this

department when it was first set up that it was supposed to investigate

the background of women and poverty in British Columbia. Now that's a

very crucial kind of study that we need to know. We have to have that

kind of information. I'm wondering whether this work has been done, or

whether the minister can tell me whether funds are going to be made

available so the division can get on with the business of research

which is so important in this area.

You know, the major role of women in our economy at this time is

that of consumers. In fact, the great GNP that we keep hearing about

and the increase in spending, to a large extent, is mainly the

responsibility of women. As Galbraith pointed out to us, really the

only function that we have in this economy is to consume, to spend and

spend and spend. Yet there is no record anywhere of our input in the

GNP, certainly in terms...and I'm referring to British Columbia and

Canada. The Americans have done some very good work on this and maybe I

could refer the minister to one reference that would be of great use to

him in this regard. It was done in the United States and it's the kind

of thing we would like to see done here. It's a study done by Walker

and Gage on the dollar value of household work, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman. An index was tried to be done of the kind of

contribution that women make to the gross national product in terms of

their consuming role in society, in terms of their spending.

I tried recently through the department, and I dealt with the

minister personally on this, to get some kind of information about the

input also that women make into the society in terms of either paid

labour or unpaid labour. Again, the department was unable to come up

with that kind of information. In all fairness, I must admit that they

were extremely helpful and referred me to the Dominion Bureau of

Statistics in Ottawa, where I discovered to my horror that they

couldn't come up with the information either, that they had not done

this study. So it seems that it's going to be up to this little

province to lead the way in getting together the kind of information

which will give us a really honest assessment of the input that women

have into the economic growth of our society.

You know, the American study tells us, in fact, that in the last

year alone, the kind of input that women put into the American GNP was

over $200 billion annually. We want to know in this country what kind

of input we make to the GNP here too, because it's very important to

us. A lot of services and things that women ask for, government gives

them the impression that they're asking for charity and they're asking

for handouts, by deliberately not taking into account the input and

deliberately not measuring the kind of input that we make into the

economy. We have to have those figures. One of the reasons for the

setting up of this department was that that kind of research was going

to be done so these kinds of figures were going to be available to

government as well as to women's groups and other groups around the

province.

The other thing that I want to say about this business of economics,

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, is that there really is

never going to be any meaningful change in terms of the role that women

play in the economy of a province until we are a part of the policy

formulation, until we are part of the policy that's being made. Again,

this is another thing that this branch should be doing, and I know to

some extent that surely it must be done.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Surely, in terms of the development of the north and the coal thing

that the member for Vancouver Centre talked about, there must be a lot

of input from the women's economic branch into that because when you

move into an area and you start a development, you can't just look at

it only in terms of the natural resources. You have to look at the

social resources as well and you have to have input from the people who

have to live in that area when it

[ Page 1520 ]

is opened up. This is the kind of input that this

branch should be giving in terms of measuring the social impact on it,

in terms of job opportunities for women who will be moving into the

area, either job opportunities on a part-time or a full-time basis.

So my second question to the minister has to do with this: what

about the development of the north and to what extent in the coal

project development are you using the Women's Economic Rights Division?

What kind of input do they have in this?

The third question has to do with the research which the branch was

settled to do in terms of our economic input. What about it? Has it

started? When will this kind of information be available to us?

I also notice that one of the things that the branch was supposed to

do was to monitor the whole business of the department itself in terms

of equal opportunity for women in the Department of Economic

Development itself. I want to know how that is coming along. It goes

under the term "affirmative action." I want to know how that is coming

along.

My final question has to do with the role of the director of this

branch herself. In speaking to the previous Minister of Economic

Development (Mr. Lauk), in terms of the frame of reference which was

outlined in the beginning, she was supposed to have a director's status

within the department. Has this been carried through? Is she a

director? I think it is to our discredit, as indeed it is to yours and

that of the government before you, that women in the civil service are

all concentrated in the lower echelons of the civil service. There are

so few of them who have reached a director's level. In fact, if you had

gone through with the blueprint as it is laid out and she had been

appointed to director's level, she would have been one of the

top-ranking women in the civil service. I think there are only

something like seven women presently at that level.

If you wouldn't mind answering very briefly, Mr. Minister, these four questions for me, I would appreciate that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, the

branch is continuing all those activities consistent with the original

mandate. With regard to the northeast coal study the branch is having

input into the labour studies and into the community resource studies

that are going on there. With regard to the positions in the branch,

the lady in charge becoming a director is not finalized at the present

time. It wasn't finalized by the previous government. We'll take a look

at it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we haven't this year any additional moneys to go into the research that is needed. We'll take a look at it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I understand your concern about it.

I'm told by my deputy that we do have an allocation of funds but it's a

matter of gearing the staff to do the job.

MS. BROWN: Could I just ask one supplemental? Can we anticipate a report on the work of this

section of your department reasonably soon?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The work of this particular branch will be in the annual report.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, the minister

conjured up a very positive image as he stood on the banks of the Liard

River. It was something like King Canute — he wanted to roll back all

the waters. One of the things that the minister has been credited with

saying is that he is against expansion that will create hardship. He

said that recently when he was in his home riding. I think that that's

a very good....

He's leaving now, so I hope his deputy takes notes, because I am going to deal with his riding. Maybe you'd better wait.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, I'll have to get the deputy minister just to nod as I ask a couple of questions. Is he still the president of the BCR?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair, please, Hon. Member?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, maybe you could inform me: is he still president of the BCR?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on with your remarks, Hon. Member, please.

MR. LEVI: Well, we'll presume that he's still the president

of the BCR and hasn't been reshuffled. In line with a statement that he

made that he is against expansion that will create hardship, presumably

he is articulating the policy of the government that they will be

careful in terms of hardships that are created when they go into

expansion. What I want to ask him is: what is happening in respect to

remedying the hardship that was created under the previous Social

Credit administration — namely the Stuart-Trembleur Indian band problem?

Some years ago the PGE, as it was then, negotiated to go through the

band lands or the right-of-way. Part of the agreement was that the

right-of-way would be

[ Page 1521 ]

granted subject to an exchange of land on the basis

of three to one. Now the history actually started in 1967. The band was

in touch with the lands branch in 1969. In the spring of 1972, up to

that time some survey work had been going on and then in spring of 1972

the construction work started and the band itself was becoming

increasingly concerned because no settlement had been made regarding

the environmental damage nor had they completed the three-for-one land

swap. In fact there was a letter from the Department of Lands to the

B.C. Railway on December 8, 1972, in which it said: "The Indians are

now claiming that certain trapping crossing points are adversely

affected by our grade, that it is difficult for the trappers to

navigate and they want an inspection made after break-up."

Nothing really happened in respect to the hardships created by the

railroad. When the new government came in the railroad was completing

its survey. Discussions took place about compensation for the damage to

the environment and this was remedied. Then further discussions were

had with the BCR and the government regarding the setting up of an

economic development study.

It's my understanding, and as the minister is not here.... But I would like him to tell us at what stage are those negotiations?

Last summer there had been agreement on approximately 900 acres of

the 1,100 that had to be agreed to. I would also like him to tell me

whether there has been any progress in respect to the Edward Reid

report regarding economic development.

The second question that I want to deal with is also a question of

economic development, and this affects an Indian settlement in the

area, the Kelly Lake settlement which is in the minister's riding. That

band was in receipt of a grant from the Department of Human Resources

and it paid the Frontier College organization the money to provide two

people to work in the area. That agreement was made some two years ago.

This Kelly Lake is a very remote area. I see the minister's coming back

so I'll just go back over my remarks about the Kelly Lake band and then

recover the ones on the BCR.

I'm talking now, Mr. Chairman, to the minister regarding the Kelly

Lake situation. The minister may know that there was a grant made to

the Kelly Lake band which the Frontier College provided two people — as

it happened it was a man and wife — to work with the band an a number

of items including the question of economic development.

That grant continued for two years but it has now been cut off. In

the recent list of grants that his colleague, the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), circulated, the grant to Kelly Lake

no longer exists.

I'm sure that the minister will realize that in view of the

geographical location of Kelly Lake and the efforts that were made by

the Simards in developing a number of programmes, including working

with and on a local initiative programme in terms of an entrepreneurial

effort, I would hope that he would take the opportunity to discuss with

his colleague the Minister of Human Resources the continuation of this

grant. This is an extremely important grant for that area and I will be

taking the opportunity on Monday of asking his colleague, the Minister

of Human Resources.

But going back to the discussion about the BCR, I understand that

the minister still is the president. I was asking about these

negotiations in respect to the Stuart-Trembleur band and where they are

at in terms of the land swap and what is happening in terms of the

economic development package that was put together by Edward Reid and

whether this is being proceeded with.

One of the important things that I've noticed has been missed in the

discussions that the minister had in this House regarding economic

development: he appears to have consistently stayed away from including

the Indian people in terms of their economic development. I'd be

interested in his answering a question regarding the Stuart-Trembleur

band and the land swap and the economic development package, and also

whether he's prepared to assist the Kelly Lake band in obtaining a

further grant so that it can continue its development and move into the

entrepreneurial efforts that it has been making over the past two years.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, with regard to the British

Columbia Railway, I'd like to inform the member, Mr. Chairman, that I

am not and never have been the president of the British Columbia

Railway.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Vice-president, executive.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to inform the member for New Westminster that I am not the vice-president of the British Columbia Railway.

I would like to inform the House, Mr. Chairman, that, as is known and is written in the record, I am a director.

MR. LAUK: You're the czar of the BCR.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am a director of the British Columbia Railway.

I want to tell the members, Mr. Chairman, for the record that I'm

the only cabinet minister who is a director of the British Columbia

Railway at the present time. It is our intention, as I said last night

in this House, to keep the British Columbia Railway out of the realm of

politics, to have a completely independent board.

[ Page 1522 ]

I want to further inform the House, Mr. Chairman, that as a director

of the railway, I'm not receiving any director's fees, which is

contrary to policy that was established over many years. No cabinet

minister ever receives director's fees.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just going over the accounts

payable of financial statements of the British Columbia Railway, and

there's a little figure in here for Mr. A. Nunweiler of $3,000. It's my

information that while he was a cabinet minister he was also paid as a

director of the British Columbia Railway.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Alfie? It must be a typographical error.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is it a typographical error?

Certainly it's a great change from any policy by the previous

government, and certainly even while the NDP were in office none of the

other cabinet ministers who were directors of that railway ever

received any remuneration as a director. Maybe some of the members in

opposition could answer the question as to why Mr. Nunweiler was paid

director's fees while he was a....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's on page 15 of the financial statements of the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ended January 2, 1976.

As I say, my understanding of this little sum of $3,043.73 is that

Mr. Nunweiler was indeed paid director's fees while a director and also

a cabinet minister. I don't know why. I know the Minister of Economic

Development didn't receive any director's fees, and I know that the

Premier didn't receive any director's fees. I was quite amazed, Mr.

Chairman, that our past Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Nunweiler) was

paid director's fees.

With regard to the Indian land claims on the BCR, I would prefer,

Mr. Member, that you bring that up while the estimates of the minister

in charge of Indian affairs are going through the House. The Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), as you are well aware, has that under

his jurisdiction.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the minister says it's under the

Minister of Labour's jurisdiction. We're dealing with the BCR; we're

dealing with the negotiations that are being conducted by Mr. Rutley.

That's clearly under the BCR, not under the Minister of Labour. We're

not dealing with a land claims settlement as such but rather an

agreement that was made some years ago for a land swap. If the minister

doesn't know any of the details, that's fine — after all, he only sits

on the board as a director. I would suspect he doesn't know.

The other question that I asked he completely ignored — are you

prepared to assist the residents of Kelly Lake, which is in your own

constituency? Are you prepared to make representations on behalf of

these people to have the grant that was made to the Kelly Lake group

reinstituted so they could carry on with improving their situation,

particularly in terms of some economic development which they're

attempting?

The minister, Mr. Chairman, can't slide out of the issue of the

Stuart-Trembleur Band on the land question, we're dealing with a very

specific BCR matter here. If he doesn't know he can just indicate he

doesn't know and we'll try it under the Minister of Labour.

It's quite clearly a BCR matter. There are a number of pieces of

correspondence which are headed "BCR" which are signed by Mr. Mac

Norris, the vice-president. Surely, Mr. Minister, you must know about

those kinds of negotiations that have been going on. It's not the issue

to slide over to the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the

member that the management of the railway is running the management and

I'll certainly be quite happy to give him a report as to where the

negotiations are.

MR. LEVI: That's very generous of the minister. I appreciate that.

Now what about the Kelly Lake band? They're constituents of yours.

Would you like to comment on the grant that they're no longer getting?

Are you prepared to approach your colleague, the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), to reinstitute this grant which is so

essential to them? You know where Kelly Lake is, I presume. It's not

quite inside Alberta but it's in your riding.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would be most pleased to check into the matter, talk with my colleague and find out the situation.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister can stand in his place and

assure us, as a minister of the Crown, that Mr. Nunweiler received

$3,000 from the railway as director's fees.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the information I have is

that the amount of $3,000 was 12 equal payments of $250 per month for

fees as a director of the company. The railway paid directors $250 a

month only and did not pay the president,

[ Page 1523 ]

executive vice-president and secretary. The amount

of $43.73 was a payment made to Mr. Nunweiler for goods damaged,

shipped under way bill 271388.

Vote 36 approved.

MR. WALLACE: We finally surprised the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A pleasant surprise.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 4: deputy minister's office, $1,178,296.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I notice

in this vote there is a sum provided for contributions to fairs and

societies. I would like to ask the minister if this is the spot where

the grants are allocated for women's aid and farmers' institutes.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, it just occurs to

me that the minister might better be able to answer some of these

questions if his deputy were here. I wonder whether, by leave, we might

agree to proceed with the votes in the Department of Economic

Development while that deputy is still available. There are just two or

three votes left, I think, and rather than bring your other deputy back

at a later date, I am sure we would agree to....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you would agree to that, I would be most happy to withdraw.

Leave granted.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 37: general administration, $4,763,066.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could

indicate two things to me: where is the salary for the director, or if

she's not a director, the head of the Women's Economic Rights Division?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote 37.

MR. LAUK: But where can I find her salary in vote 37?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry. Did you already give that answer in Hansard ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's under trade development officer 3 — E. M. Canner, $21,756.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if he could also

indicate...in policy planning and research there is an associate deputy

minister, under the deputy minister's office, and there is an associate

deputy minister under business and industrial development; I understand

that there are now three individuals at ADM status. There is Dr. Rea,

Mr. Meredith and Mr. McKeown. I'm just puzzled; I don't see another ADM

status there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rea's appointment was made after the estimates were

prepared. It was passed by order-in-council; the salary will be the

same.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman,

just two brief items, the main items in increased expenditure, and

listed under technical-assistance programmes and trade missions.

Between these two items there is a very substantial increase, the first

one by 250 per cent — two and a half times. Trade missions are not

quite doubled. Very briefly, could the minister tell us the new areas

that will be covered by these increased expenditures?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be most

happy to. Increased expenditures reflect a higher level of activity in

assistance to secondary industry and small businesses; also included

are funds required for study of higher value-added processing of

agricultural products. The sharp percentage in the increase is a

distortion, since the small-business assistance division was fully

staffed for less than one-half of the 1975-76 fiscal year; in other

words, it wasn't a full year. Increased activity with regard to

offshore trade missions to expand B.C. exports leading to increased

employment and provincial revenue....

MR. WALLACE: Any particular new areas for trade missions?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We have a

summary. I could provide the member with a

summary of our planned trips.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote where we're going

to have to pick up, I would think, the whole amount of the proposed

staff reduction salary saving of $ 29 1,000. Now it must