1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

561 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 56.

Mr. Cocke –– 561

Mr. Davis –– 561

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 563

Ms. Brown –– 561

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 563

Mr. Brummet –– 567

Mr. Leggatt 567

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Cocke –– 568

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 569

Mr. Barber –– 570

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 571

Mr. King –– 575

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 576

Mr. Barber –– 576

Mr. Hanson –– 577

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 578

Ms. Sanford –– 578

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 578

On vote 57.

Ms. Brown –– 578

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 578

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) has done a great service for the province from time to time,

usually when he's out of the province — in Japan, trying to foster

trade, and the other places where he's been. In the course of his

moving around, I wonder whether he really realizes what we have to deal

with here. It strikes me that over 75 percent of the jobs that have

been created in B.C. during the last 15 years are jobs in the service

industry. I guess that's mainly because of our attractive surroundings.

We're a good place for tourism and a good place for retirement. But the

high-paying jobs in the service industry are outside the province. B.C.

has 11 percent of Canada's employment but only 7 percent of all private

management jobs. Beyond that, we have only 4 percent of financial

management jobs. B.C.'s research and development employment is less

than one-quarter of the normal level. Really and truly, there has been

no effort, or very little discernible effort, from this minister who

puts out statistics and then gives speeches that make one wonder

whether he even reads his own statistics. As far as providing any kind

of confidence and any kind of input that would mitigate some of the

real problems in our province, that minister has been a disaster.

believe that if we really put our minds to it in B.C. and try to get a

handle on our own economy rather than leaving everything to others to

make all the decisions, we could very well look forward to something

more here than being a colony of Canada. We needn't be; we're a very

rich province. This attitude of "the east knows best" has been

enhanced, and their position in the west has been enhanced by

governments such as we have here: governments that are timid,

governments that are afraid to play any

part in the economy. They set

up an economic development ministry which really has no participation

in the development of the economy. It's a government so timid that

they'd sell off the very fine industries that were picked up at bargain

prices by the previous government.

I suggest that we should

hear tonight some real plans for British Columbia's development, not

the waving of arms, the flying fish and the grand statements about:

"Here we're selling this and we're selling that."

As I said before dinner, the thing that really has saved the economy has been

the bonanza in the forest industry. That wasn't enhanced in any way by this

government. It was enhanced by the differential in the dollar; that 15 percent

really helps. Even there we are in a serious situation right now. Housing starts

are down in the United States and apparently will continue to go down. They

are on the edge of a recession, so we are going to have to be just a little

bit innovative here in B.C. I'm always delighted to see us interested and

involved in secondary industry, service industry, but there's very little

coming out if it.

Under

education we're going to hear all the great plans from the Minister of

Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He's whispering

now to the Minister of Economic Development. Get up and tell him we're

going to create another MIT out of UBC. So far, that's fanfare, really

what the Socreds can do best — a PR job. But when it comes to anything

tangible, anything real, what we get from the Socreds are losing

propositions. The only action we've seen is in the backbench. They jump

up and down at the call of the House Leader, voting, often times,

against their better judgment. That's their action. They don't even get

up and speak in defence of this minister, and I don't blame them. I

wouldn't speak in defence of him either if I was a government

supporter. But does he understand the real reason for B.C. being in the

bind it's in?

I was in the insurance business at one time

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

ICBC bought me out. I paid that eternal price, making a move into this

business. I spent a great deal of that time moving from here to the

east. For ten years I was provincial manager for a very large life

insurance company, and during that period I got to know better, and

with greater depth of understanding, exactly why we are in trouble. One

of the things that drove me into politics was the fact that there was

nobody tending the shop in this province, and down east they know it.

They keep all the controls down east; there's no question about that.

Tell me one major financial institution that has its headquarters in

this province. The Bank of British Columbia....

Interjection.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

Yes. It's got a lot of dough. They wonder what they're going to do with

it all. But, Mr. Chairman, we have shown no insight at the government

level here during Socred regimes in terms of how we get a handle on

creating a very vibrant B.C. economy. We have a lot of the wherewithal

to see to it that we do become part of management. But so far we've

failed. Imagine: 4 percent of financial management jobs, while we have

11 percent of such jobs in the country: 7 percent of our other

management jobs in this province, while we have 11 percent of the total

workforce in the country. And in Manitoba, now that Mr. Disaster,

another Socred in Conservative garments.... Wait till you see what

happens to that province. The Red River will gobble it up; there'll be

nothing left by the time those Socred Conservatives get through with it.

MRS. JORDAN: Just like Saskatchewan.

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

[ Page 562 ]

most

deprived, the poorest province in Canada until the CCF took over in

1944, and now, Mr. Chairman, the province with the best outlook, the

province that's really got a handle on its own economy, and the lowest

unemployment in the whole country, including Alberta. Yes, I'll take

Saskatchewan any day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go! Go!

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

Mr.

Chairman, let the minister stand up and tell us something new, tell us

that he's got something in the offing that can give us some confidence

that this government knows where it's going in terms of economic

development.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I can't help

but rise after the member for New Westminster has spoken and say that

I, for one, unreservedly support the Minister of Economic Development.

I think the basic policy approach to economic development followed by

this government is the right one.

MR. LEA: What is it?

MR. DAVIS:

It's spelled out in the budget address of the hon. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe). On page 13 we find that the economic strategy

concerning the growth and development of British has

"had

to recognize two overriding characteristics of our economy: a

traditional dependence on primary resource industries; and a heavy

dependence on exports, particularly to foreign markets.

"British

Columbians will continue to prosper, but we must begin now to plan for

a new phase of development. Our economic base must be diversified and

barriers to income growth must be removed. Natural resources continue

to be our strength as our employment base is extended into new

activities such as..."

and they are enumerated on page 14.

"...further

processing, resource-related manufacturing, the service sector and,

finally, high technology activities related to our resource base."

have one question I want to put to the Minister of Economic

Development. I wonder if his ministry would consider a study of the

economic advantages of further processing coal in this province. One of

the most obvious ways to do this is to use the coal wastes from our

metallurgical coal mining operations, convert those wastes to

electricity and, as long as we have an electricity surplus in this

province, export the electricity but, of course, always reserving what

is both the requirement provincially and the requirement under the

National Energy Board Act nationally, thereby reserving the position

that if an electricity requirement in the province is not served, that

output be then diverted to British Columbia consumers.

listened with interest to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt)

talking about basic policy. I think he quite rightly stressed our

renewable resources. We should certainly favour the development of

renewable resources as long as we ensure they are, in fact, renewable

through sustained-yield operations, whether that applies to fisheries,

forestry or agriculture. We must make sure that the resource, whether

wild or man-made, is there for the long-term future and that, indeed,

it is an expanding resource, if at all possible.

We have

other resources which are not renewable in the technical sense.

Minerals, generally speaking, are non-renewable. We are engaged in the

mining industry, and many people are employed in mining in this

province. We should process more of those resources before they are

exported, and certainly all our own requirements.

The most

abundant mineral in this province, which has been economic, on and off,

is coal. Yet we use practically no coal in British Columbia. We export

it for steel-making, principally in Japan. We use, instead, the more

depletable, more exhaustible, lower-cost fuels like oil and natural

gas. But sooner or later we are going to have to utilize coal

internally, and the first way we will utilize it, certainly in any

quantity, is in the form of electricity. If we can take refuse coal

that is mined today and simply thrown aside at the mine sites to make

electricity, we'll be upgrading a resource which has virtually no value

today; we'll be increasing its value a hundred- or a thousandfold;

processing — in other words, finding jobs and providing considerable

employment — to the advantage of the provincial economy.

assume the Minister of Economic Development is primarily concerned with

jobs — hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in the industries of this

kind. Where a resource is now wasting, certainly a non-renewable

resource, where it can be economically converted in this province into

a saleable commodity like electricity, we should engage in that

activity.

I'm not convinced that all the environmental

aspects of thermal power generation in the Crowsnest Pass area, all the

environmental protection needed, can be provided. But the evidence to

date is that if we are going to process any coal anywhere in this

province to make electricity — that is the lowest-sulphur-containing,

the lowest-impurity-containing coal anywhere in the province — if we

can't generate electricity there from that coal we're not likely to be

generating electricity in any quantity anywhere else in this province

for a long time to come.

I suggest this will be a relatively

clean industry. Certainly as far as solid wastes are concerned, it will

clean up a mess. It will help relieve a water pollution problem. The

evidence I have seen suggests that if there is an air pollution

problem, a question of inversion in those narrow valleys, it's a matter

of 2 percent or 3 percent or 4 percent of the time, and no more. It is

certainly possible to burn natural gas or some other fuel in a power

plant there in order to overcome that problem.

In other

words, there is an industry possible in that area: a

resource-processing industry; an industry which can upgrade a resource;

an industry which can provide several hundred jobs for 30 or 40 years,

just based on the refuse from the present coal mining operations; a

stable industry; an industry which can support a stable community; an

industry of the kind which I believe all members of this House could

support. It makes a lot of sense. It's certainly cleaner than the coal

mining and coal washing operations there by a long shot. It's one of

the cleanest industries possible, and if the new pollution standards

which are being developed in the Environment ministry hold, then it

will probably be the cleanest coal-fired plant anywhere on this

continent, if not in the world.

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

[ Page

563 ]

of the aspects of a useful job-producing industry are available there, and

it's one which I would hope that the Ministry of Economic Development would

take a careful look at to see whether it is economically viable.

I think that it makes a lot of sense from an international trade

point of view. Not only does it upgrade a resource that is otherwise

going to waste, but it involves an export into an adjoining area of the

United States where the total power output is 40 or 50 times the

maximum output from such a plant. In other words, this plant would be

exporting 3 or 4 percent of the total, power consumption in the U.S.

Pacific Northwest states which are integrated in a power grid. It is

not a tremendous amount of energy, and it certainly would not be

alienated forever. It's on the scale of a few months' low growth in the

adjoining states of the United States. I personally think it would be

wise, at least from an international trade point of view, when we've

cut off our Canadian oil exports to the U.S. Pacific Northwest, where

within ten years we'll be terminating all our natural gas exports,

where, if I were to follow the admonition of a minister of the NDP

government, when the Libby Dam was launched, we were threatening to

divert the upper Kootenay into the upper Columbia as well and cut off

some of their water. I think it would be useful if we were to export a

relatively small amount of electricity into the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

In my view, it's good business for British Columbia. It certainly would

be part of a reasonable, sound economic trading relationship with that

area, and it certainly would be a gesture at least of good

neighbourliness to a part of the continent which at times has supplied

us with energy when we've needed it. I think it is reasonable in this

modern day and age to trade in electricity, as all of the European

countries do, as many of the Canadian provinces have done — to their

profit — with adjoining areas of the United States.

The hon.

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) says: "Let's be a little bit

innovative." It's not really innovative in most Canadian provinces —

certainly not around the world — to trade in electricity; but it seems

to be innovative in this province to talk forthrightly about trade in a

commodity which, history has proved, can be exported and repatriated.

And if we are able to upgrade a resource like waste coal in the

Kootenays in the process, so much the better. It is a tangible

possibility. It may be economically viable; I hope it's environmentally

sound; but I would recommend the project to the Economic Development

ministry for careful study.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the member's remarks. Fording and Kaiser have

already commissioned the B.C. Research Council to do a study on the

very thing that the member has suggested. That research is presently

going on, and if the study says that it is economically feasible, which

it probably will.... Of course, as you know, we want to look at it in

terms not only of the southeast and the existing coal stock pile, but

also of other future mines that could be developed.

In that regard, as you know, our Science Council has been set up under the

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. We now are setting up an office

of coal research where we can analyse the properties of coal. I don't think

we should re-invent the wheel, but we certainly have to analyse the properties

of our British Columbia coal, because, as you know, coals are the same as heavy

oils: they have different properties and you need different refineries. As for

oil processing, you need different methods of burning and different methods

of pollution control for the various properties in the coal.

MS. BROWN:

I wonder if the minister would tell me where the women's economic

rights branch comes under this. I haven't been able to find it in his

estimates at all, and I know it must be here somewhere. Am I permitted

to talk about it even though it's not in the estimates? Or doesn't it

exist anymore?

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

MS. BROWN:

Well, maybe then what I should do is ask the minister whether he has

eliminated the branch and, if not, whether it has just changed its

name. Does it exist in another form, in another life, in another place?

What has happened to the women's economics rights branch, which was

instituted by the previous administration? Is this an indication of the

kind of commitment which this particular ministry has towards women and

the whole process of economic development in the province? Would the

minister be willing to respond to that question now, Mr. Chairman — or should I proceed?

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

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

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

MS. BROWN: I didn't know that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

We've started a study, and we're doing that. But with regard to your

comments, Madam Member, I've had some meetings with women's groups

around the province, and I've said to them: "Come to me with a

meaningful program." You know, just putting something in the budget is

not going to change anything: you've got to have a meaningful program,

and I think it's got to be an educational process. We're doing a study

with regard to employment and equal opportunities within the government

service, and it will be available probably about the end of August.

MS. BROWN:

The function of the women’s economic rights branch was not to do a

study within the government about equal opportunities for women. Its

function was to integrate women into the planning of the department in

terms of economic development around the province. That’s the reason

why it was instituted in the first place, and that was its function. It

wasn't a matter of going around to women's groups and saying: "Come to

me with your plans." Its function was to see that when economic policy

was being developed for the province, the perspective of women was

taken into account and their needs were integrated into the planning.

[ Page 564 ]

this no longer a matter of import to the government? This is all I'm

trying to find out. I'm not interested in the minister's statement

about equal opportunity in the civil service; that's not its function.

That's not the minister's responsibility; that's the responsibility of

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I wouldn't ask him to do

the Provincial Secretary's job. He's doing a lousy job in his own

department. Why would anyone ask him to do someone else's job? But in

terms of economic development for the province, who is looking after

and interpreting the perception and the needs of women in this

province? Who is integrating that into the economic development? That's

the question I'm asking the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The full mandate of the women's economic branch is now included in the

social economic branch of the economic analysis and research bureau in

the department performing, basically, the same function.

MS. BROWN:

Maybe the minister will elaborate and explain to us just what this

social economic integration is all about, because there's nothing here

that shows up in that regard. There was a task force study. Should I

wait while you're briefed by the deputy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

What we're looking at here in this particular branch is the total

impact on people, not necessarily just females or children. We're

looking at the total impact of any economic development on the total

population. The women's economic branch is included in this. For

instance, when we did the studies on the northeast coal, we did a study

to see how the various elements of society are going to have as many

rights as anybody else, and how it's going to impact on a community.

Wherever we look, we look at the total impact.

MS. BROWN:

I'm really pleased to hear that it's looking at the total impact on

people, because I was under the impression that we were people too. As

a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman.... Have you recognized me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have, hon. member.

MS. BROWN:

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm wearing a medallion which is commemorating

designated that women were people too. That's the reason why I'm asking

the minister to give me some indication of the kind of research that's

being done, and the ways in which the female people of this province

are being integrated into the economic planning of the province.

year ago a task force on single industries in the north brought down a

number of recommendations — the northern British Columbia women's task

force — and I know it was paid for by the federal government, and the

provincial government did not make any sort of financial contribution

to it, but maybe at that time you weren't studying people; you were

just looking at other things. But a number of recommendations were

brought down, and I'm interested to find out what has been done in

terms of implementing some of these recommendations which were brought

down by this northern British Columbia women's task force report on

single-industry resource communities.

Also at the time when

there was a women's economics branch a study was done on the

appropriate child-care scheme for a new town based on a northeast coal

development. At that time some recommendations were made in terms of

introducing day-care services in the proposed new town with reference

to the northeast region. There were recommendations made about funding,

discussions about the user fees, the costs, et cetera. I would be

interested in what has happened to that recommendation now that the

minister has seen fit to wipe out that particular branch and integrate

it under something known as "social policy."

In addition,

there is the pipeline project, which I guess should have been discussed

under the Ministry of Energy, but I didn't discuss it then because I

knew it had to deal with the economic development issue.

want to know in what respect the provincial government is again

integrating the needs of women into this particular development. Again,

the research on this is being funded by the federal government. I am

aware that the provincial government is not putting any funding into

this. The federal government has been funding the women's research

centre to do some studies in cooperation with two women's communities

in the north. They have been bringing down some recommendations, and

they have been voicing some concerns.

Mr. Chairman, one of

the major concerns is the whole business of child care facilities, the

same concern which was touched on in this report by the women's

economic rights branch before it became a social division that dealt

with people rather than with the specific and particular needs of women

living in this area.

They talked about the boom-and-bust

situation which the member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned earlier. It is

a major concern because a community takes the attitude that the

development of the workforce is going to be temporary, lasting only for

a short period of time. They have a lot of people move into the area,

but they are not going to settle there permanently. They are going to

be moving out afterwards, so the community is discussing the

possibility of not investing in additional human resource facilities,

such as child care facilities.

Has the Ministry of Economic

Development taken into account the impact of these people moving into

the community? A number of them have wives and small children. What is

this going to do to the already strained resources in these particular

areas?

Has the Ministry of Economic Development, through its

section on social development, taken into account what is going to

happen to the other services? One of the things that the women talked

about was something as simple as the experience of shopping. Again,

small businesses take the attitude that the influx of people is going

to be temporary. They have not been expanding to deal with the

additional workforce that is coming in, and the women are talking about

having to line up even to do something as basic and as simple as their

grocery shopping.

Has the Ministry of Economic Development

taken this into account? Has the whole issue of the socio-economic

impact of the development of the pipeline project and the whole

business of its temporary nature been taken into account? Who is giving

the perception and who is talking about their specific needs? Society

has decided that women are in the home and their specific needs have

centred around

[ Page 565 ]

child

care, health care and mental health. All of these things were dealt

with in the task force report, which were dealt with in this report,

and came out of the department back in the olden days when they had an

economic development thing. These things came out of the federal

research done by the Fort Nelson Women's Centre and the Yukon Status of

Women council.

What is the provincial government doing about

implementing any of these recommendations? What is it doing about even

listening to the concerns of these women? Is there anyone in your

ministry who is now listening to these concerns? Is there anyone in

your ministry who is now thinking in terms of integrating them? The

provincial government has taken the position that it is not going to

participate in the public hearing process and the whole pipeline

business. How are you going to hear about this? You're not funding any

research. I could be completely wrong, but I have been in touch with

the Fort Nelson women, and they tell me that there is no funding: there

is no research, there are no inquiries coming out of your ministry on

this. They are expressing some real concerns about what is going to

happen to their community once this workforce moves in with its

families.

One of the things they reminded me of was that in

their report they talked about February as their suicide month. They

brought to my attention that this year was no different, that indeed

they did have an increase in the number of successful suicides, if one

can be so bizarre as to use the term "successful" when one is talking

about suicide.

They were talking about the fact that mental

health remains their biggest problem. There used to be a travelling

psychologist who used to go through Fort Nelson. That person is no

longer there; that visiting psychologist has been removed.

They

are talking about the fact that there are men sleeping on cots in the

church at night because of the lack of accommodation. There are no

plans to deal with additional housing needs because, again, the

community sees this as being a temporary situation, and they don't want

to invest a large sum of money in trying to deal with this. I want to

quote from one of their reports: "Women are gravely concerned about the

already insufficient social services of Fort Nelson being stretched

beyond any usefulness to meet the housing and service needs of workers

and families that both government and pipeline companies are claiming

that they have no responsibility for." If ever there was a time when

the Ministry of Economic Development needed a women's economics rights

branch, it's now. It was in place. It was doing a very effective job.

You yourself, Mr. Minister, talked about the educational job that needs

to be done. That was part of its responsibility. The representatives

from that branch were travelling around the province, advising all

kinds of women and women's groups about getting into small business.

They were actively involved in helping women develop some sort of

economic independence. In particular, in the north and the rural areas,

where that was needed, you have wiped out that branch.

say it is now integrated into social development, because you are

looking at persons rather than at women, is not the question. There

isn't any question about whether you were looking at persons or not. I

should hope you were looking at persons. It is not your responsibility

to look at animals or birds or fish; you are supposed to be looking at

persons, There was a recognition that, for a time at least, those

persons who happened to be female needed some particular looking at and

listening to. That's why that

section was introduced. To say that it's

now been integrated into a social policy

section because you're looking

at persons doesn't mean anything. It means you've decided that women

are no longer going to be a concern of your department; they're going

to be ignored; they're going to become invisible again. That's what

you've decided. At this time when the north in particular needs these

kinds of integrated services and the kind of particular perception they

have to offer, that department has been wiped out.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I appreciate the member's comments. The mandate of the women's economic

branch has not been wiped out, and to say so is not right. I would

suggest you go to the ministry and have a talk with the person in

charge of that particular department. As a matter of fact, the mandate

has been widened. A lot of things you were talking about clearly belong

under another branch of government, when you talk about provision of

services in a particular area.

With regard to the pipeline,

we will be assessing that. Hearings do not necessarily always come up

with the answers. We will be analysing that. The pipeline is off one

day and on the next day. We'll get excited about that and take some

action when we're sure the pipeline is going ahead.

With

regard to the new townsite, the women's rights branch headed the

economic impact on that particular development. We will certainly take

into consideration their recommendations when that development goes

ahead. To say we've wiped out the branch is not true.

MS. BROWN:

The minister was the person who, when I inquired where the branch was,

told me it was no longer there. The minister was the person who said

there was now something new called — I think he said — the social

development

section or something that was now looking after people.

Those were the minister's words. I didn't say the branch had been wiped

out. I just said I couldn't find it anywhere in the estimates. At that

point, the minister informed the House there was something new called

"social research," and somehow the mandate to look after people, rather

than deal with the concerns raised by women in the first place, which

made the implementation of such a branch necessary, was no longer a

necessity, as he perceived it.

Again, I keep quoting from

the Fort Nelson Women's Centre, because that’s a group I deal with. I

keep in contact with them. I'm sure that by talking about them I'm

putting their funding in jeopardy. They'll probably find their funding

is wiped out as a result of this. However, what must be, must be. But

they talk about the fact that there has been a pre-construction influx

of people into the community and that this has increased the social

problems and is straining....

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

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

[ Page 566 ]

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

MS. BROWN:

No, I updated this by re-telephoning, if there is such a word, to find

out what has happened since then, because I knew that your estimates

were coming up, Mr. Minister. I know that the Ministry of Health is the

one that has to deal with the mental health needs and Human Resources

has to deal with the human resource needs, but as the economic planner

for the province, as the person who has the big overview, the economic

rights branch in your ministry, when it existed, monitored those other

ministries and saw to it that those services were there. That was part

of their function.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS . Well, as I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, this

particular branch of the ministry.... Although it's not there under the

same deal, the function is still there. As a matter of fact it has been expanded,

and I'd be quite happy to send you a copy of a letter which I sent to the

deputy some months ago expanding the mandate of the women's economic rights

branch.

MS. BROWN:

Thank you very much. What I would appreciate is to have from the

minister some indication of the budget which this expanded branch now

has to work with, and some indication of the response to the

recommendation by this northern women's task force and the

recommendation brought down by the Fort Nelson women in terms of what's

going to happen to their community as a result of the on-again,

off-again pipeline. As I said, they have said already that there is an

influx of pre-construction people. So if you would care to share with

us the budget and some kind of indication of these recommendations, the

ones that have to do with your day care, which probably was done by

your branch a year ago.... It doesn't have a date on it, but it was

probably submitted by your branch. It said: "The appropriate child-care

scheme for the new town...." That recommendation and the other

recommendations that have to do with the integration of housing needs

and child care and mental health needs into the development of the new

town.... Also what kind of planning do you have to deal with the whole

thing of the small businesses in the community, which are saying that

this is a temporary boom situation, and therefore we are not going to

invest a log of money in expanding our services, which, as I mentioned

earlier, is causing a hardship to people? That kind of information

would be of use to me.

They're talking about things like

child abuse, transition houses, housing facilities, and the fact that

the present infrastructure in the schools, child-care facilities,

healthcare facilities and mental health facilities is overtaxed. So

would you tell me what the plan is for that community? That's what I

want to find out: what the plan is, what budget we're working with.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, I want to tell you that until the pipeline is a definite reality,

there is no plan, because we have to decide first of all if the

pipeline is going to be built and where the camps are going to be

located. We can't go in and do a study on the actual needs until we

have something definite to work on, and the member should recognize

that.

Now with regard to the women's rights branch, as she

calls it, it is integrated into vote 57 and policy planning and

research and business and industrial development. It's integrated into

there with the same mandate. It's not set out separately as a women's

economic rights branch, but they're still doing the same function. As a

matter of fact they have a wider function now than they used to have.

MS. BROWN:

That's really all I want the minister to make available to me: the new

mandate, the new budget, the new tasks which have been placed under

this department, because I know what they used to have to do and I know

what their budget used to be. If it's been expanded and it's bigger and

they're better than they used to be, and they're implementing these

recommendations, this is the kind of information that I would like you

to share with me. What department should I appeal to in terms of the

pre-construction impact on this town? It's happening. You're waiting

for a decision to be made about the pipeline before you make a

commitment one way or another. But while you are waiting, people are

moving into these towns, and, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman

— it's laid out right here. There are people sleeping in church

basements; the social facilities are overtaxed; the health care

facilities are overtaxed; the mental health facilities no longer exist

because, in fact, what happened to the travelling psychologist is that

the travelling psychologist was never there when an emergency arose —

by then the travelling psychologist had travelled on to somewhere else,

and in frustration the travelling psychologist travelled right out of

the area and has not been seen or heard from since. So if you are not

responsible for some kind of economic plan, some grand plan for this

area, to whom should I appeal on behalf of this town, in terms of

what's happening as a result of the pre-construction impact?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to send you a copy of the increased

mandate, but I don't know if we can break out the actual number of

persons. It's integrated, but it's there with the same mandate.

I'm

very interested in your comments on this pre-construction impact. When

the pipeline was first announced, there was an influx of workers into

Fort Nelson and Fort St. John. But my understanding of the situation at

the present is that that has died down and people are not coming in.

Now Fort Nelson is a thriving and booming community, but not because of

the pipeline; it is because of what is generally happening in the

petroleum industry there. I don't know where you're getting your

information from, but if there are those problems that you say exist

there today, then we should be talking to the other ministries. But I

don't think, Madam Member, with all due respect to you, that this is

the actual situation caused by a pre-influx of construction workers for

the pipeline.

If we have problems in Fort Nelson with the

Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Human Resources or any other

ministries, I'd be most happy to assist in getting additional

[ Page 567 ]

services

if they're needed. That is a frontier town, and people who live there

and people who live and develop the north should have the same services

that people who live in downtown Vancouver have — and let me assure you

of that. I've been a member representing the north for quite some time,

and I want to tell you that those people up there do deserve equal

opportunity, equal services in all branches of government. If they're

not giving it, let me know; let the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet) know. But to come in here and talk about these things, if

they've been existing.... You know, I have just a little bit of

difficulty with it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I

thought the minister knew, because according to my copy of the letter,

with the report, a copy of the letter went to the minister as well. I'm

sorry this is news to him. I'll share my copy with him again, but

according to the material I'm using there's a copy to Hon. Don

Phillips, MLA, South Peace River. Now is that the Don Phillips, MLA,

South Peace River, to whom I'm speaking at this time? Because it's all

here. I thought we were discussing something that we were both familiar

with, Mr. Minister; I had no idea that it was news to you.

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

MS. BROWN:

Oh, I'm very, very sorry about that, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be very

happy to copy it, and maybe I should send it somewhere else this time

since the correct address didn't reach the minister last time. Maybe I

need a new address for the minister. But, in fact, all of the

information that I'm using here is information that was shared with the

then member for North Peace River, Mr. Ed Smith, and the present

minister. A Mr. Howard Lloyd also received copies. So I'm sorry, I

thought I was dealing with material that was familiar to the minister,

and that's why I raised it in the first place.

In any event,

I am particularly interested in your commitment to get me the

information about the expanded mandate of the women's economic rights

branch, its expanded budget, and also some response about what's

happened to the recommendations which came down from these various task

forces — in terms of your ministry implementing those recommendations.

MR. BRUMMET:

I have just a few brief comments, since Fort Nelson has been mentioned

here. I think that the brief that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is

quoting from has come across my desk as well. But being there and being

familiar with the total situation, I think the member for South Peace

River and I can put it into proper perspective.

I think what

you have reflected in that material is a very small minority view. We

know, or at least I know, quite a few women in Fort Nelson, and they

simply form an integral part of the community. Many of them don't want

special women's groups. They don't want special women's consideration.

They have equality of opportunity. They fit into the community where

they want. All that you have to do is send up a request to say, "Are

any of you women in Fort Nelson unhappy?" and you will find three or

four that will get together and submit a wonderful brief to you.

You

seem to take objection to the minister referring to the women as

"people," but we don't make a distinction. The majority of women there

are not pleading for this. You may be talking about a minority group.

You're talking about a very small group that is sending you these

briefs.

As I mentioned before, we can put it into proper

perspective. I am much more familiar with the Fort Nelson situation on

a personal basis, and in the campaign, in the election and all the time

I have spent up there, I have not been approached by any of these

people with this concern.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MS. BROWN: He's hopeless.

MR. LEGGATT: I

want to make a couple more comments in view of the general,

wide-ranging debate. One of the things that hasn't been discussed here

in terms of economic development is the transportation system in the

province.

We've heard a good deal about the fact that

Pacific Western Airlines moved its head office to Edmonton. We've had

considerable debate in this House about whether they should have moved

or whether they shouldn't have moved or whether the previous NDP

administration should have done something about it.

But I

think it's incumbent on this minister to seriously examine what's

happening in air transportation in British Columbia. A serious study

should be made of a B.C. air system — a system that serves the north,

with a head office in the north if necessary. Don't discount the idea

of a government-owned service: don't become an ideological fanatic

about that, because a government-owned service may be the most feasible

way to enter an appropriate B.C. air service to help economic

development in this province and in the west.

Just because

we lost PWA's head office doesn't mean British Columbians don't have

the capacity to get into their own air service and give PWA some really

good competition in the province. I think, to get on with the question

of economic development, the minister should have a very serious look

at getting into the air business in B.C.

The next thing I

wanted to deal with was inspired by the member for North Vancouver, who

talked about the whole question of coal as an energy source in British

Columbia. I am still convinced that we have to examine wood waste in a

practical way as an alternative energy source. I would like to refer

the minister to a study which was prepared for the Ministry of

Environment. It's an Ottawa study dealing with large-scale methanol

fuel production from surplus Canadian forest biomass. It's admittedly a

preliminary study, but it has within it some very exciting prospects.

They set up a plant in Prince George using surplus wood products in

that area. Very substantial volumes of methanol can be created, and

with the way energy prices are rising, this is becoming more and more a

feasible alternative for us in British Columbia in the production of

methanol, which can be used as an alternative to gasoline. You can use

gasoline or

[ Page 568 ]

methanol.

The cost of converting your vehicle is, according to this study, as low

as $100. You could convert all of the vehicles in British Columbia very

easily to use methanol from wood waste.

It's something that

we should be examining very seriously in terms of the economic

development of the north. A good

section of the north — and the minister knows more about the north than I do — has

uneconomic forest areas that aren't prime in terms of lumber

production, but they may be very prime in harvesting for things like

methanol, harvesting for alternative energy sources.

I would

very much recommend this particular study to be carried further in his

ministry. It's admittedly a preliminary study, but it contains within

it some exciting prospects for British Columbia in terms of alternative

energy.

The last thing I wanted to ask the minister was: in

earlier remarks he indicated he would be able to tell me the actual

expenditure of the item on small business. I realize the budget for

'78-'79 was $1 million for the small business training program; the

budget for this year is nil. However, I understand that's a transfer,

but I'm still interested, through you, Mr. Chairman, in knowing the

actual expenditure last year of that $1 million. Did we spend our $1

million? Did we underspend it? Where do we stand in terms of the actual

dollars put into what I think is a very important part of the

minister's responsibility?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I was

just going to answer your question, Mr. Member, prior to the break for

dinner. The budget was set up at $1 million. To the end of April 1979,

$195,650 had been expended. Now you might say that's a very small

portion of the $1 million which was budgeted. It took us a little while

to get the contract with the chamber of commerce, and we've had some

difficulty in getting the proper educational program and who's going to

deliver it. The concept is still there; we know it has to be done, and

we have been working with BCIT. You just don't come up with a program

that we want to make it effective, and you can appreciate that. There

are some smaller courses being carried out by the colleges in the

various regions, but I recognize the importance of it. The other thing

I'm pointing out is that there's not much sense in having the actual

course unless you have the delivery system and unless you can have some

method of getting those businessmen who need the education and the

upgrading out to take the course. So there are some problems there that

we're still working on. The overall concept remains.

It is

interesting to note that with the great economic development taking

place in British Columbia today, PWA has more employees here now than

they had when they moved their head office to Edmonton. As you know,

Canadian Pacific Air is a big industry in British Columbia. A recent

announcement just said they're going to spend millions of dollars in

upgrading their plant here; we've got some competition. Because CP Air

now has the mandate to touch those eastern markets there is pressure

from eastern Canada to have CP Air move some of its offices to Ontario.

We're going to have to watch very closely to see that that doesn't

happen. Air Canada moved out of Winnipeg some years ago, and it hurt

that community. We will be monitoring that. A B.C. airline? Yes, it

would be nice to have a B.C. airline for regional travel. CP Air

started in British Columbia, PWA started in British Columbia; maybe

we'll have to start another one. But it has to be economical. I'm not

saying the government is going to get into it; but if there were a

need, and that need were not being served, then we'd certainly have to

take a look at it.

MR. COCKE: Ask your own constituents about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

When there is an energy crisis it is great to talk about solar energy

and wind energy and methanol, and all these. But we are really looking

at a very small percentage of the total energy requirements if we used

all of them. There is a new method of converting wood waste to pellets,

which can be transported. There is a plant in British Columbia, and the

beautiful thing about this plant is that you could have that plant in

an area where there is a limited amount of hog fuel. You could produce

the pellets and they could be trucked to a central area to put into a

large converter to make steam or electricity. That whole area is

certainly under review. Now that we have the Science Council, they will

be doing further studies on methanol. But methanol in some of the

Scandinavian countries is used quite extensively as a fuel in

automobiles and in other internal combustion engines. I'm not sure how

great a future it has, but certainly it has to be looked at.

MR. COCKE:

I was interested to hear the minister talking about the wonders of PWA.

Probably one of the biggest mistakes of our government was to let Peter

the Red get away with that airline. What he's actually done, he did

right under the minister's nose, and possibly he has a few more

employees here, although I rather doubt it. I know many people who work

for PWA — all seem to be working part-time these days. But in any

event, what he's managed to do successfully with PWA is to use British

Columbia as the milch cow, as the real source of revenue for the

airline, while he uses that revenue for his own northern development,

using his airline. That's our big problem here.

The airline

is not terribly depressed if it loses a run in B.C. from time to time,

particularly if the passenger load is small that particular day —

you'll find a breakdown or something of that nature. But I'll tell you

right now that they sure get the service in the north. It's a shame. I

think we made a real mistake, when we were government, in not pursuing

it. We were catching so much flak from the Socreds — that member was

one of them — in those days for having picked up one or two

corporations that were helping bail this province out....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Swan Valley Foods.

MR. COCKE:

The minister sits there all shiny and lovely in this chamber talking

about Swan Valley Foods, when they've been merchandising those BCRIC

shares. I just can't believe it, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, Mr.

Chairman, the minister talks about air service. He'd better get

cracking: either give some support for an air service that is uniquely

British Columbian....

Interjection.

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

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

[ Page

569 ]

while

ago, our service industry is run from the eastern part of this country,

and a lot of it is run from another country altogether. That's why we

spend so much time wringing our hands and saying: "Why is it we just

can't seem to get this province on a course of real success?"

Mr.

Chairman, I think that is one area that we should really be looking at

very, very carefully. Those that indicate that Mr. Lougheed made a

proper investment are quite right; but, boy, is he ever using us. That

Kamloops run, the Kelowna run, and the run to Prince George are the

richest runs on that airline, and that carries the works of his

northern development, and he can just sit back and not even have to

touch his heritage fund. It's a marvelous situation for Alberta, but

rather lacklustre for us.

One thing that amazes me about

this minister. I listened to his reply to the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). He was telling about how he's expanded

this women's economic rights branch — expanded it to the extent that

he's so ashamed of it he's hidden it in the estimates and he says it is

somewhere in "Administration," under vote 57. What is it, Mr. Minister?

Is it a clerk 4, step 5? What are we talking about? What are you

ashamed of? Why isn't it in your votes?

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

MR. BRUMMET: I did not.

MR. COCKE:

What does he know about it? Who does he ever talk to? [Laughter.] Keep

your mind where it should be, Mr. Minister. You know, Mr. Chairman, he

goes up there and he talks to the wives of the chamber of commerce at a

cocktail party. They've lived there for many, many years, and some of

them are quite satisfied.

MS. BROWN: They're committing suicide too.

MR. BRUMMET: And you know all about it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I come from the north myself — just as far north as many

of the areas of this province. I was born in Athabasca, Alberta, and I

spent a lot of time there. I know all about cabin fever.

Interjection.

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

any event, there are a number of people in all northern communities....

I was Minister of Health; I went around this province, into every

community, including that community, and found a lot of people in a lot

of trouble just because governments don't give a darn — and it's about

time they did.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. It happens under every circumstance. That's

no reason that we shouldn’t be following it up. We did. We set up the

human rights branch. We set up a number of things when we were government in

order to give people access to government. I hope that you take your defence

back up to that country with you and show people what you had to say to protect

the people in your country.

I'm ashamed that a person will get up in this House and suggest

that it's just a bunch of rubbish that is being put forward in that

brief. He knows it's not rubbish, Mr. Chairman. If the minister is

doing so much in this area, why don't we see it in the votes? What's he

trying to hide? What's he ashamed of? It just is not there. The vote

that he named was vote 57. Do you know what that says to me? That he's

spending $7 million on administration We have no idea from that. He

hasn't put forward a report. He hasn't put forward anything conclusive,

other than to say: "We're doing a lot." But we see no evidence of it,

Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Some of the comments made by the member for New Westminster were very,

very interesting. You talk about setting up a women’s economic branch

in the Ministry of Economic Development. You set it up, but none of

those positions ever went through your Treasury Board or through your

public service and were finally established. You set it up as a glossy

painting only. It had no meaning. So don't stand up there and give me

this crap.

Interjections.

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

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

The

member for New Westminster was talking about the mistake they made when

they didn't buy PWA. I'll tell you why they didn't buy PWA. They were

shovelling money out the back end of the truck so fast that when the

opportunity came, there was no money left to buy PWA, or they would

have bought it. That's a fact.

I have to say that I think it

might have been good for the province. But I'm glad they didn’t buy

PWA, because had they bought PWA and run it like they ran the ferry

service or the British Columbia Railway or the transit service, it

would have been a disaster to this province worse than the one they

perpetrated when they were government.

MR. COCKE: I

would just like to say to this minister that he really doesn't

understand his own mandate. He hasn't a clue: that's why we're in so

much trouble. He can get up and talk about what the previous government

did or did not do. That's ancient history. Mr. Member. You know as well

as I do that we were the best government this country has seen. Leaving

that aside, all I want to ask him is what he has done. What has he done

for this province except talk? Nothing. He went over to Japan and came

back empty-handed. Anywhere he goes, he comes back empty-handed. He

sits in this House and says: "Let me out of here, so I can go out and

do some more. Do some more of what? We've seen no evidence of anything

this minister has done to date.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

It's evident that the member for New Westminster has his eyes closed

now, the same as he did when he was government. He couldn’t see what

was going on when he was government. He might have. I have a

[ Page 570 ]

little

appreciation that he's got a brain. He might have seen what his

colleagues were doing to the economy of this province. He might have

said something. But he's got his blinkers on today if he can't see

what's happening in British Columbia: how the economy is moving ahead,

how the long-term planning is happening. It's happening, my friend.

Investment is coming in here. This happens to be the brightest spot in

all of North America to invest in today. Believe me, it's happening.

It's happening because of the policies of this government; make no

mistake about that. That bothers you, Mr. Member. You can heap all the

personal abuse that you wish to on me, but history will prove that I

was one of the greatest Economic Development ministers this province

ever had.

Some of the policies that we brought in are being

copied not only by the national government but certainly by other

provinces in Canada. Who led the way? When we became government we had

to sell the fact that growth was essential for a solid tax base. They

had left an atmosphere of no-growth here. I don't know where they

thought the money for the tax base was going to come from. You go

ahead, but please open your eyes once in a while and read the facts.

MR. BARBER:

When we open our eyes and read the facts about small business

bankruptcies in British Columbia, we know just what kind of an Economic

Development minister you've been. The best indeed! Certainly you are

the most modest, for good reason.

First of all, I wonder if

the minister would give some advice. Would he be prepared to debate

tourism matters here, or would he prefer to debate that under vote 205?

He's responsible for both.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you can debate any and every aspect

of the minister's responsibility under his salary vote. We have agreed

from time to time that we will do it in order for convenience sake. But

if the member wishes, or if any other person wishes, to debate any

aspect of his responsibility, they may do so under his salary vote.

That is the only place that it should be relevant. We've been using a

little bit of procedure lately that is not the real procedure, nor is

it a long-term rule of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

Chair is going to have to tell all members that we have vote 56 in

front of us, which is the Ministry of Economic Development, and that is

the vote that we are discussing at this point. That is the opinion of

the Chair. The Chair recognizes the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber), on vote 56.

MR. BARBER: There are some other

matters I will discuss first, but with all respect, perhaps you should

speak to the Clerk. It is the practice in the House, and you know it,

that under the salary vote you can discuss any ministerial

responsibility.

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

MR. BARBER:

I know you will, because you know the rules too, but the Chairman is a

new member and doesn't know the rules. Perhaps you should speak to the

Clerk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member

for Victoria has the floor. It is the Chair's opinion that we will

discuss vote 56, the Ministry of Economic Development. Please carry on.

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

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

MR. BARBER: I quite agree.

First

of all, if I may support the comments of my colleague for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), an air service in Canada is by and large

a loser. One of the reasons why so many transportation services in this

country are owned as public enterprises rather than private — with the

exception of certain metropolitan runs and certain highly exclusive

runs — is that in a country like our own, which is essentially 200

miles wide and 5,000 miles long, it is a loser. That's how it's going

to be in this country; we recognize that.

I think it is a

fundamental responsibility of a competent administration to be willing

to accept the long-term value of development, as did a former Social

Credit Premier in his view of the usefulness of B.C. Rail, another

loser itself. Directly it was a loser, but indirectly it has been

profitable to the whole province.

So it is with air service

in the north, with the exception of a few passenger runs in this

province. By and large, air service isn't going to make money. By and

large, however, planned competently, with some scientific sense of

growth and centres of growth, air service could and should be supported

and, if necessary, be subsidized by the public through an appropriate

public enterprise.

I want to support the comments of the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) when he argues that it may

well be that the government has the role as the owner and developer of

a new, third carrier in British Columbia. It could serve those areas

where private enterprise can't make a buck, and where it's unreasonable

to expect them to want to lose money instead of make money. It is

reasonable that private enterprise have a role there. It's reasonable

that people understand from the beginning that private enterprise

cannot go in where there is no profit in the narrowest and quickest

sense. But public enterprise can and should go in where the profit is

long-term; where the benefits are long-term, where the development is

long-term and where finally and ultimately we all benefit thereby.

[ Page

571 ]

I think there is a role for a study of a public

enterprise air service in British Columbia that serves those areas

where private enterprise can't make a profit, nor should it be expected

to. It's appropriate and fair that we call on the minister to initiate

those studies.

I want to talk about another matter, and it's

the LILA program. I wonder if the minister might at this moment inform

the House as to his ministry's commitment to and participation in the

LILA program. I see he's looking at his notes, so I'll hold on for a

moment. Do you want to go on that right now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm ready.

MR. BARBER:

It's a program, as the minister is well aware, of some considerable

value to small business in British Columbia. It allows loans, some of

which — all of which, in some instances — are forgivable, up to an

amount of $30,000. I wonder if the minister might tell us of his

ministry's involvement in the LILA program across British Columbia, and

what they've been able to do with it in the last year.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm glad the member for Victoria has complimented me on the new,

innovative programs that we've brought in, but I wish you'd get them

straightened out. You're really talking about the ASEP program when

you're talking about $30,000. That is the Assistance to Small

Enterprise Program, and it's a good program. We've assisted — the last

figure I have — 175 businesses with average loans of $17,000 up to

$30,000 and as low as $5,000. It's been a good program: forgivable

loan. It's an innovative program being looked at by other provinces.

It's not a grant, but a forgivable loan.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR, PHILLIPS:

Well, we haven't gone into the antique furniture business in downtown

Victoria. I would imagine if the member is running it, why.... No, I

won't say that.

But it's very interesting to note that the

low-interest loan program has helped a number of industries in various

sectors, including high technology industries, manufacturing and

fabrication industries, the forestry industry, the fishing industry and

agriculture. It's been a good program. It hasn't been available in the

lower mainland area, and that's why we have this $5 million surplus

that we're putting into this program to expand it.

I want to

tell the House that I am looking at all of those programs. They were

new and innovative. Some of them have been very successful, but we've

always got to look at them in terms of being able to look in the mirror

to see whether they are accomplishing what we set out for them to

accomplish.

The LILA program is good. As you know, it is

being administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation. It

has helped a lot of areas, but we have to look at the same type of

program to apply to downtown Victoria and the Vancouver area. That's

why we have the $5 million available.

But I want to tell you

right now that I'm not sure that it's going to be the same type of LILA

program. It may be to start with, but we're looking at some new ideas

to actually determine where we best can help the small businessman,

where we can help the small manufacturers. We may be changing the

program to allow it to serve and accomplish what we want it to

accomplish with better methods.

MR. BARBER: I'm happy

to give credit where it's due. and it's due here to the minister. ASEP

and LILA are good programs. The federal government also deserves some

credit for the money they’ve put into them by and by. They've

contributed 50-50, I think.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The taxpayers too.

MR. BARBER:

The taxpayers deserve all the credit. Be that as it may, the minister

correctly points out that the LILA program is not available in greater

Victoria, and that's a real problem here. I want to talk about that for

a moment, and I would like, if I might, to see if one could win an

undertaking from the minister.

As the minister is well

aware, a business that wished to take advantage of the LILA program in

Brentwood Bay in greater Victoria cannot do so. It is excluded; it may

not do so. However, if it went two miles across the water to Mill Bay,

it could. In an area like Victoria, this is absurd. It just doesn't

make any sense at all. The boundary basically is the Sooke watershed.

That's where the boundary is.

I have constituents, small

businesspeople who come to me to talk about this, and I know they've

been to the minister. They've been to the minister. They've told me

that for them it is a difficult matter to try and compete with a

business in the same field in Kelowna, say, that can get the money. a

forgivable loan.... Now if that isn't a grant, I don't know what it is,

but if you prefer, call it a forgivable loan.

I want to make

the point, because I promised them I would. I would be happy to hear

you as well, but I undertook to raise this myself on their behalf, to

argue as effectively as I can that it is for them a matter of simple

unfair competition. Their competitors elsewhere in every other part of

the province save Vancouver can take advantage of a joint federal and

provincial program from which they are excluded. They argue: "We pay

taxes to support those programs. We pay our taxes in British Columbia

to support the economy here and all those other programs as well as

LILA and ASEP. but we’re excluded. Accordingly, it's unfair

competition. Why are you doing that to us?"

My reply is that

that's a good question. That's a really fair question. If the minister

is prepared to take a look at that, could he tell us when he is

prepared to announce the result of the second look? Because these

business people have a good case. It's not fair that a guy who is in

small manufacturing in Victoria has to compete, together with all of

the problems of being on Vancouver Island in the first place, with guys

who can operate the same business on the mainland and have the

advantage of access to all these other programs in the second. It's not

fair for them.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

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

[ Page 572 ]

did

our level best to have Victoria included in the original IDSA

agreement. We wanted them included. I tried again the first year. After

the first year of the IDS agreement I pleaded with the minister here at

Victoria to have the whole Victoria area included in it. It was a

federal decision. The provincial government wanted it, and the federal

government wouldn't let us have it. That's why we're bringing in our

own program, Mr. Member. Yes, we're going to bring it in. We're going

to bring in the LILA program to apply.

I can't tell you the

exact date, because I'm taking a look at how we're going to implement

it and who's going to be the carrier of it, who is going to look after

the actual implementation of the program.

But that's from

the provincial government, because we recognize the need. As you know,

we've made one boundary change out there on the IDSA program to bring

in the Trident deal under the program. I had to plead and beg with the

federal government. What frustrates us here in British Columbia, as you

know, Mr. Member.... Look, it's our money. We have to go 3,000 miles to

get it and then we're told how to spend it, and that's one of the areas

that we've been fighting with Ottawa to change, you know.

have gone to Ottawa; we have talked about these programs; we have led

the way in trying to get Ottawa to change its mind on many of these

programs because we haven't sat here and accepted the status quo. We

want programs to work. We don't want to give the taxpayers' money away;

we want to invest some seed money and have private enterprise invest

the bulk of it, and that's happening in many of the programs. We've got

some problems on the boundary deal, and I don't like being told how to

spend our own money by the bureaucrats back in Ottawa. That's why are

going to continue to negotiate for a better deal for British Columbia

with the same method we have had in the last three and a half years.

MR. BARBER:

That's good news, and I'm glad to hear it. I'll pass it along first

thing in the morning when I get the Blues to the guys on Fort Street

who've been talking to me. It's good news.

As you know, our

administration set up, amid some criticism, the B.C. Development

Corporation; we share the same concern. To this extent there are no

partisan divisions: both sides of the House want healthy, competent,

locally owned, private enterprise to succeed in British Columbia. We

set up the B.C. Development Corporation, you've carried it on — good

for both sides. LILA and ASEP have expanded; good. Now if you're going

increase the ceilings. A ceiling that was appropriate three years ago

may not be appropriate now. That's fair; that's good news too. I can

only urge you: the quicker, the better.

I've got people in

my riding who would like to take advantage, as their competitors

can.... I'm not speaking for my colleague from Rupert. He has not been

lobbying his MLA. He's on Johnson Street; I'm talking about guys on

Fort Street.

Then there is another matter: the Greater

Victoria Economic Development Commission. Three years ago I was pleased

to be very involved in helping to set it up. It is an organization in

Victoria which was created by people representing several parties,

several interests and several points of view. The Greater Victoria

Economic Development Commission came officially into existence two

years ago last January; it has, in my own judgment, been highly

successful. A great deal of the credit for that goes to people like

Frank Carson and Scott Wallace; it certainly goes to the current

director of economic development for the commission, Barry Mayhew. He's

a fine, first-rate guy. He works hard, he works well, and his problem

is that he doesn't have enough money. You were nodding your head all

along until I said that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What?

MR. BARBER:

I saw you stop nodding your head when I said he doesn't have money. I

want to hit you up for some money; I want you to spend more money on

these things. Kamloops has a budget of $25,000 a year, greater than

that of the economic development commission in Victoria. Victoria is

somewhat larger than Kamloops, and the problems we have, located here

on the bottom half of an island, partway out in the sea, 75 miles away

from the continent, are considerable. The costs of transportation, to

say the least, tend to make it difficult for light industry to develop

in Victoria. I'm one of those who believes that the future of Victoria

industry consists of developing those products whose raw materials come

in in a Volkswagen and leave in an envelope. That's appropriate for us;

we can afford that here in Victoria. It's clean; it will employ the

kind of people who tend to come and live here; it tends not to upset

the neighbourhood interests and the environmental values that are

highly important in a community like Victoria. We set up — many of us

from many different points of view — together three years ago an

economic development commission. The problem is it doesn't have the

money.

Let me illustrate. The travel budget for the

commissioner, who has to compete with all of the other commissioners

doing all of their other good work elsewhere, is peanuts. It's just

peanuts. He has about $3,000; it's nothing.

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

MR. BARBER:

It doesn't buy enough peanuts when you've got to compete with economic

development commissioners in Vancouver, Kamloops, Seattle and the rest

of the places. What I'd like to hear from the minister is whether or

not he intends in the coming fiscal year to continue supporting 50-50,

as he has done, to his credit, since he began and since we asked him

to, and whether or not he would be prepared to increase that grant to

allow this commission and others to be able to deal, as they must now,

with commissions that exist in other parts of the country that also

attract business here.

As you know, there are such

commissions very active and very aggressive in Alberta. Alberta is a

heavy competitor now for industries that formerly would have come all

the way west to British Columbia. They're offering, they're baiting,

they're making available support, and they're doing it through that

particular instrument, their own economic development commissions, or

however they call them, with which we have to compete. It seems to me

that, given that fact, the province should be perhaps more aggressive

and willing to spend a bit more to allow us to keep pace with all of

the other communities and all of the other provinces that have been

bright enough to set up their own highly aggressive, highly disciplined

and pretty

[ Page 573 ]

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

I'd

like to point out that organized labour in Victoria is heavily involved

in and heavily committed to our Greater Victoria Economic Development

Commission. It's a matter of public record that the chairman of the

commission is Mr. Larry Ryan, a much respected man. He's an alderman in

Victoria; he's also the secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Labour

Council. He's the chairman of our economic development commission. Here

labour and capital are getting along, because they both see the same

problem in largely the same way and they both understand the need to

apply basically the same remedies. But Larry Ryan would say — I've

discussed the matter with him — and so would Barry Mayhew, that they

just don't have enough money to compete. It's difficult enough for

business to compete in Victoria as it is, being at the bottom end of an

island; it's even harder for the economic development commission to

compete. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to commit himself

tonight or in the forthcoming fiscal year to the increased and more

aggressive support of economic development commissions here and across

the rest of the province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chairman, I don't know whether I can stand all of these compliments,

because it was under this government and this ministry that we came out

with these bold new economic commissions throughout the province. You

know something? We said: "Now we're not going to put them in forever so

that these fellows just go out and get fat and lazy and don't do their

job. We want economic development commissions to work, so the funding

is set so that it's diminishing each year — 90 percent, 70 percent, 50

percent, and the third year no funding. It's set up specifically so

that we wouldn't build in a bureaucracy and the industrial

commissioners get out there and say: "Well, boy, I'm hired for life."

I've said that we'll look at it on an individual basis, and I've made a

commitment to those assembled industrial commissioners: "If you're

doing a good job, you don't have to worry about your job." Because if

they're working, I want to see them improved. We're going to have to

take a look at the boundaries; we've got some problems there with the

new idea. I'm glad to hear you say that it is working. Yes, it is

working.

With regard to Victoria, I want to tell the member

that I was part of the original meetings setting up this industrial

commission.

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

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

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

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: I made a commitment. I said: "Yes, if you're

that interested and it will do a good job, I'll fund you 50 percent."

I'm telling you tonight, sure, we'll fund you 50 percent for another

year. We'll take a look at increasing the budget.

MR. BARBER: Did I hear you say that there was a program wherein you

were committed to 90 percent, 75 percent and 50 percent funding of economic

development commissions?

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Don't forget that the city of Vancouver funds its industrial commission

100 percent. So we've made an exception because Victoria is the capital

region, and we looked at all the ifs ands and buts and said yes, if

they want to help themselves and they're interested, we'll go ahead

with it, I’ve told you, we'll fund it for another year.

MR. BARBER: How much?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I said we'd take a look at increasing it too, and I'm telling you we'll

take a look at increasing it. Tell them to come up and have a talk with

us and certainly we'll take a look at it.

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

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

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

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

When

you take a look at their application, I hope you will give some

allowance to and some support of the particular requirement of this and

any other commissioner to be able to travel personally from time to

time to make the personal connections with the personal impact that

only a personal visit can have. At the moment his budget is totally

inadequate for that. I think to compare it with Vancouver is not

entirely reasonable because, as the minister knows, the tax base and

the industrial base in Vancouver is enormously greater than here. In

1967 Victoria had some 20 more industrial enterprises than did

Richmond. This year Richmond has 200 more than Victoria does. Other

parts of the province have been growing enormously more rapidly, right

across the straits and elsewhere, than has Victoria.

We've

got some real problems in this city. It's not an industrial town. No

one wants a steel mill; no one wants industrial parks; no one wants

much sometimes until things get desperate, which is how it was that so

many of us, including yourself, with all credit due, got together in

that room as we did so many times three years ago. That's how we came

to agree on it. Now that we've agreed on the fundamentals of it, I

think it would be a big mistake to withdraw significant funding too

early. And I know what you've said. I'm just restating that when they

come to you to ask for more, I hope you'll be willing to support more

money for the ability of the commissioner to travel personally from

time to time to make the case for us in Victoria. It's really important

to them.

[ Page 574 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to remind the member that I have an office

here in the building and I have a phone. I'm usually available. You

could have come in and talked to me on this, or Barry could have come

in and talked to me on it. We'd streamline this House a whole lot if we

could take these little individual problems you have.... You know, I've

never bitten an opposition MLA in my life, and when I was in opposition

I used to go into minister's offices and fight for my constituents. I

think we'd cut down and streamline these estimates if we'd take these

little individual problems to the minister, and you can still get your

credit for it in your constituency.

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

MR. BARBER:

Well, from time to time I do go to certain ministers. Other times it

seems more appropriate to raise the matters here. We all judge that,

don't we, personally. I know you used to raise those matters. I watched

you from the gallery doing so for your constituency.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Me?

MR. BARBER: Yes, you.

I want to talk about the Princess Marguerite . The minister has by now, I'm sure, received the report I asked you about in question period two weeks ago on the Princess ....

No? Who opens your mail? They sent it to you. I was told they sent it

to you. You haven't received the report? The report is on the costs of

upgrading and refitting the Marguerite to meet the U.S. pollution standards and....

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

MR. BARBER:

Well, let me ask you some questions so that you can answer the whole

thing. It's a matter of record, as the minister knows, that there have

been serious morale problems aboard the Marguerite . The

minister knows that senior management of B.C. Steamships has received

petitions, letters of complaint and grievances at a very high level

from the ordinary working staff of the Marguerite . I myself

received a petition signed, I guess, by about 30 of them just a week

ago, and I believe the minister got a copy. Could the minister as well,

when he rises to tell me what's going to happen to the Marguerite

vessel, tell me whether or not he's contemplating any changes in senior

management? It strikes me that it's most unusual that there are so many

complaints from so many areas of the workforce aboard the Marguerite

and onshore in B.C. Steamships as well. I wonder if there are some

management problems that could be resolved by personnel changes, by a

structure that works more appropriately or by some new decision-making

process. It's simply not necessary that there be so many complaints;

its bad for the service. The passengers pick up on it. They sense

what's happening when poor morale is at hand on board ship. It hurts

the service; it hurts the revenue of the company. It does all sorts of

things that are not productive, and no one wants them. I wonder if the

minister could report as well on the labour and management problems on

board the Princess Marguerite .

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've just had the responsibility for the Marguerite

for a month or a month and a half. I've had a meeting with management,

and I'm going to be having my first board of directors meeting with the

new board very shortly, as soon I can find time from the House. There

is a lot of controversy around the Marguerite . Some of it is

imagined, and some of it is real. When we have a properly constituted

board of directors meeting, we will discuss those problems. I have just

finally got so that I am a shareholder on behalf of the people, and I

will be having a board meeting very shortly. I'm certainly not going to

be listening to hearsay, because we're dealing with a very touchy

subject here — people's personalities and so forth. I think we have to

be very careful.

The Marguerite is having the best year it's ever had. I think that the record for June was 66,000 people travelling on the Marguerite

— up 32 percent over last year. What I want to do is to have a board of

directors meeting. I've asked for some reports on the present ship. How

is the hull? What will it cost to renovate it? We've got to take a look

at that versus a new ship, versus maybe putting another ship on. We've

got to make those decisions, and we will make them in due course, but

I'm not going to go in with a sledge hammer and throw my weight around.

I don't know much about running ships, I don't mind telling you. I'm

seeking some expert advice, and I'm having some studies done at the

present time which may lead to more detailed cost studies. I want to

know the economics before I make a decision. The way I feel about this

is, regardless of what decision I make, I'm going to be damned if I do

and damned if I don't. I know the position I'm in, so I'm going to make

sure I've got all the information and the best information possible

before I make a decision. So that's about all I want to tell you about

the Marguerite .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members,

are we to assume that the Tourism portfolio and the Economic

Development portfolio are going to be handled under the same particular

vote?

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

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

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

he is commissioning a study, then first of all let one of the studies

as well be of labour-management relations within B.C. Steamships.

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

MR. BARBER:

Perhaps privately, because I don't want to discuss personalities here

when they're not here to defend themselves; it's not fair. But I'm sure

we both know whom we're talking about, and it's really a problem, and

neither of us wants to see that problem continue.

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

[ Page

575 ]

Americans

they're coming to London. They're going to meet the Queen down at the

golden gate. [Laughter.] I mean no offence to anyone here in the

One of the reasons for its success is that from the beginning — thanks

to Bob Williams and the people who designed the ship, the new decor,

the new atmosphere, who had the wit and the imagination to turn it into

a bit of floating England....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Floating greenbelt.

MR. BARBER: And greenbelt. The Americans have enjoyed particularly this really quite remarkable way to come to Victoria. If

the Marguerite is lost, so is all that lost. The Queen of Surrey

is, for instance, a highly efficient vessel on certain runs. It is much

more modern in design, admittedly. It is much more able in a certain

economic way to deliver the goods, but I think you would discover a

remarkable dropoff in passenger revenue. It's been predicted by many. I

simply repeat the prediction.

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

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

MS. BROWN: Have they told you?

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

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

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

MR. BARBER: All right, but I'm trying to make three public arguments now. First of all, there is labour-management relations. They are

a real problem. Secondly, only for the gravest reasons should the Marguerite

itself ever be removed from the run. The vessel is itself the secret of

the success of the run. It's not Seattle to Victoria via water that

makes it a success; it's Seattle to Victoria via the Marguerite that allows the run to succeed. It should be pointed out that the Coho , which is a newer vessel, has some three million nautical miles on it. The Marguerite has only one million. The vessel is not in such bad shape at all.

Third, when are you going to get the report the board of directors

sent you two weeks ago? The report has been in the papers a week later.

I knew about it the day after they put it in the mail. When are you

going to get the report, and when you get it, will you table it? I want

to make sure my copy is the same as your copy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have told you all I'm going to tell you about

the Princess Marguerite . I've said I have to have a meeting. I have to analyse

the problem. I want the best information I can get. I know what you're trying

to sell. I appreciate your comments. But I've told you all I'm going to tell

you about it, because that's all I know about it. I also told you I will

walk ahead slowly but steadily, and that decisions will be made on the best

information available to me. I will get the best information available. I’m

not going to make any great decisions here in this House about the Princess Marguerite . Let me assure you, my friend, that the Princess Marguerite is in

good hands.

MR. KING: I want to discuss briefly with the minister two things relating

to tourism. Number one, a very unfortunate circumstance arose through the whole

Nelson forest district, I believe, and I raised it in the House early this year:

that was the closure of the recreational picnic sites operated by the forestry

branch. I recognize that is another ministerial responsibility. I want to point

out to the minister responsible for tourism the very adverse impact created

as a result of tourists visiting isolated areas with the expectation that the

camp would be open and available. I want the House to know I had letters from

Calgary and from all over British Columbia stating disappointment and disenchantment,

after having travelled all the way to Mica Creek, which is 86 miles north of

Revelstoke, without any notice posted on the highway, only to find their fishing

trip was undermined because of the closure of the campsite. At one point, I'm

told, 44 recreational vehicles in the Mica area were parked on the highway.

And, of course, refuse and so on was dumped because there was no available garbage

disposal, and so on. I don't know whether this is something we have to look

forward to on an annual basis, or whether it was a peculiar problem with budgeting

this year in the Ministry of Forests branch.

do want to tell you that it's very counterproductive when on the one

hand, through our Ministry of Tourism, we are trying to sell to

residents of Alberta and south of the border the proposition that they

should come to beautiful British Columbia and enjoy the facilities and

amenities available here. We're actively spending taxpayers' dollars to

solicit and invite their visitations while, another department is

eliminating facilities which would lure them here again in the future.

That's completely at cross-purposes, and I think the minister could

recognize that.

So my appeal to the minister is to please

talk to the Minister of Forests. Please try and coordinate the tourist

programs because that kind of thing, as he can appreciate, leaves a

very very bad impression for a general area.

The other thing

I would like to raise just briefly is a matter I've discussed in my

particular area. I think the Minister of Lands. Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) would probably be interested too. It relates to ski

developments.

Quite a number of the ski hills in the

Interior have encountered trouble over the past few years. There's been

a short season, not too much snow and so on. There's quite a large

capital investment involved in many of these developments. It seems to

me that we have a rather unique opportunity to assist tourism as an

all-season endeavour in British Columbia, particularly using the base

of ski hills, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and all

of these pursuits which we have these tremendous facilities for and

beautiful scenery.

The thing that makes me feel that we have

a bit of a unique opportunity is that we have a rail passenger service

now under Via Rail. It's no longer under CP Rail or CN. This is a

service devoted entirely to passenger train

[ Page 576 ]

operation.

I think under those circumstances we would find a more amenable

attitude by the operators of Via Rail to weekend excursions and that

kind of thing.

One of the problems in winter travel,

particularly in the Interior, is concern about the icy conditions of

highways. We have an energy shortage. What better opportunity is there

than to operate passenger train excursions to accommodate the winter

facilities in the Okanagan and Revelstoke and the Columbia Valley and

provide cheap and reliable transportation opportunities for our

neighbours in Alberta, who I believe will patronize British Columbia if

there is an attractive opportunity for them to do so?

I have

discussed this proposal with a number of the ski hill operators in my

particular area, and there is great interest in this kind of thing. I

believe that the minister's department could do a first-class job in

terms of selling this kind of approach in Alberta and possibly

facilitating appeals from local developments to the Via Rail people to

see whether or not there is the basis for this kind of cooperative

development.

I think it's a fairly exciting proposition. I

think it could really enhance British Columbia's opportunity as a

year-round tourist opportunity and paradise for the people of Alberta

and probably farther away too.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

With regard to the picnic areas closing, the Ministry of Tourism and

the Ministry of Forests do work very closely together, and it's only

when there is an extreme fire hazard or danger of fire that those areas

are closed.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Budgetary? I wasn't aware of that. But certainly if it was a budgetary

problem, we'll take a look at it, because I can appreciate your

comments. I was under the impression that it had been closed because

of....

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

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I appreciate your comments with regard to skiing. As you know, one of

our major thrusts under Economic Development and Tourism is to build up

our ski plan. We're almost at capacity now, and the TIDS agreement....

Well, you know what's happening everywhere you go in the province.

We've had a good budget for ski advertising in the U.S., Japan and in

Canada. We are promoting, or will be promoting, ski train packages, the

same as we do with the airlines. We want to be able to bring eastern

skiers into British Columbia. The areas on the border now are

accommodating the Alberta skiers, but we want to be able, by Via Rail,

to bring them in. We have to go forward both ways at the same time, and

we have to increase our number of skiers and our plan; and that's what

we're trying to do. There are going to be some lopsided areas, too.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to raise some questions about tourism,

and make a couple of proposals, if I may. The first proposal consists

of asking the minister whether or not the department of tourism would

be willing to commission a special study of the tourist potential of

the E&N Railway on Vancouver Island. I ask that he commission a

study to examine whether or not, through an increase of Via Rail

services, and through connection with improved Via Rail services,

enhancement of and additions to tourist facilities on Vancouver Island

might be provided.

Let me make a very specific proposal. As well as asking the minister

to conduct a study on the tourist value and potential of the E&N

Railway, would he also consider putting on the E&N Railway our own Royal Hudson ?

One of the best decisions the previous administrations ever made — and

all credit is due to Mr. Barrett, then the Premier — was to pay for and

put back in service the Royal Hudson . It's been tremendously popular on the BCR. The people of Squamish love it. It takes thousands upon thousands of tourists.

It's the equivalent of the Princess Marguerite , and it's been a total success, to the credit of your predecessor but one. She saw the worth of taking our Royal Hudson

down to the United States and making a big fuss about it. To her credit

also, she understood the tourist value of a shiny, steaming engine.

Everyone loves it. Everyone comes to see it. Everyone understands what

it means. A lot of people use it. It adds dollars; it adds excitement.

It builds the potential; it restates the potential of a good tourist

industry.

I would like to propose that we obtain for the summer, through the Ministry of Tourism, our own Royal Hudson

on Vancouver Island. It would be tremendously popular, taking off first

thing in the morning from downtown Victoria, gathering up all of the

passengers who come through, say, at the convention centre — and I'll

get to that in a moment — taking them up-Island, taking them to

Courtenay, perhaps eventually taking them on to Alberni, where at the

moment, of course, only freight service is provided, and not passenger.

We have an example with the Royal Hudson itself that persuades us, surely, that the same exciting adventure could take place on the E&N.

This is the second request I make of the minister. Would you consider duplicating the great success of the Royal Hudson

on the BCR track on the mainland here on Vancouver Island on the

E&N track? I presume Via Rail would be willing to grant the running

rights, to lease the track and to make equipment available in some

fashion. I made some very tentative inquiries, and certainly there is

no physical problem in getting a Royal Hudson across to the

Island by barge. That's no real problem at all. The problem would be

the equipment. Where do you find such a locomotive? It may well take

some time. It took some time to find the Royal Hudson

locomotive itself, but it was worth it. It was worth the investment,

and succeeding governments have both recognized the wisdom of that

initial investment. So too it would be here on Vancouver Island.

Think of the sight of it — a magnificent Royal Hudson -like

train moving literally thousands of tourists up and down Vancouver

Island in the June, July, August and, perhaps, September season. I

freely agree it might not be appropriate at other times of the year;

the Royal Hudson itself doesn't run year-round. But here too we have —

[ Page

577 ]

uniquely, vividly and visually — a means of

connecting people with the only working railway on the Island, and

connecting them through that railway with the rest of the tourist

industry.

I'm the first to admit that local people like

myself think about tourism on Vancouver Island as somehow restricted to

greater Victoria. My colleagues from up-Island frequently tell me

that's kind of blind, that it's pretty short-sighted. And they're

right. Tourism here is often channelled and made exciting by coming to

the capital city. It's a magnificent magnet, and we mustn't omit or

overlook that. But once they're here, surely there can be put together

some great ways of moving them up the rest of the Island.

How

much brighter can you get than a shiny locomotive steaming its way up

to Courtenay or around to Alberni? It worked on the mainland for the

BCR. I hope the minister might consider giving it a chance here. Maybe

the Royal Hudson itself could come over for a week or two, just to see what the draw would be. That may be one way to test it.

third proposal that I would like to make to the minister is this. I

mentioned it briefly before. It will shortly appear in written form and

be presented to the Provincial Capital Commission and to the committee

presently planning the convention centre in Victoria. It also has

tourist value and tourist potential.

I would ask that

the government consider a feasibility study that would look at the

possibility of extending the E&N track four blocks down Wharf

Street from Johnson, Pandora and Wharf, that intersection where it ends

right now, to the intersection of Wharf and Fort. It's three and a half

blocks away. What's the value of doing so? Well, it is this, in three

parts.

First of all it would solve the problem of where to

put a terminus for the E&N. The convention centre will have

considerable parking. The convention centre's parking may well be

augmented by additional facilities for those people who would

eventually use the E&N as a commuter service from downtown Victoria

to the western community. It would solve the problem for the E&N of

how to find adequate parking at an appropriate site for its own

service. That's the first possible result that a feasibility study

might demonstrate.

Secondly, it would have the ability of

enhancing enormously the convention centre itself. A train pulling up

to the front door at a siding on Wharf Street allowing the tourists who

come to the convention centre, whose business is over on a Saturday

afternoon and who have Sunday to kill, would be a very exciting draw.

They literally walk out the front door of the convention centre and

they get on the train at nine in the morning. They go up Island and

they come back at seven at night. They're back at the front door again.

the minister knows, the E&N is basically only used twice a day.

Once up and once down; that's it. There is no significant problem with

competing traffic on that railway, unfortunately.

So the

second value potentially of extending the track all of four blocks down

Wharf Street would be to enhance the potential of the convention centre

to make tourism succeed for the whole of the Island through this magnet

called the convention centre.

The third potential value lies in this. It lies in creating, in the

European sense of things, a focal point for the major activities in the

transportation field in downtown Victoria. The Inner Harbour already,

of course, is the site of the Coho , the Marguerite and

two waterplane services. The convention centre will be, of course, a

bus stop. At least one bus will run up and down Fort Street.

The roof of the convention centre might well be an appropriate place

for a helipad. In the European sense of things, and the way in which

all of those transportation activities come together at one site,

surely it might be appropriate at least to take a look at having that

as the Victoria terminus of the E&N Railway. At least take a look

at it.

I'm informed that the cost of extending the rail down

Wharf Street would be less, apparently, than roughly 5 percent of the

total cost currently envisioned for the convention centre. As well, one

could well appreciate that much of that money could come back from Via

Rail itself. They have to build a new terminus somewhere. It's totally

unsuccessful where it is. It undermines their own operation. They would

obviously, I presume, be willing to invest to some extent.

I think that the Ministry of Tourism has a role in identifying, if

it's there to be identified, the tourist potential of the E&N, to

consider a Royal Hudson -like vehicle on the E&N, and to

consider as well, through a competent feasibility study, the

possibility of solving three problems at once by extending the E&N

track four blocks down Wharf Street. Would the minister comment? In

particular, I wonder if he would undertake at least to have a look at

extending the track, at putting a Royal Hudson -like vehicle on

the track running up and down Vancouver Island and, as well, at having

a study of the general tourist potential of the E&N itself. I think

those three things are worth some examination and some consideration,

and I hope the minister is prepared to give it to them.

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

MR. HANSON:

I just have one small question of the minister. It relates to the

computer and consulting charges. I realize that is further down in the

votes, but we're moving back and forth. I think it would be appropriate

to bring it up under this.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Actually, it would be appropriate. We've decided,

I believe, to do both of the ministerial offices together, but the computer

and consulting charge would be more appropriate under the specific vote.

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

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

MR. HANSON:

Much of the work that is done by the staff of the Economic Development

ministry has to do with quantitative analysis and number-crunching and

moving figures back and forth. I understand that a lot of the work, of

course, is going to the B.C. Systems Corporation.

I also

understand that the ministry is very unhappy with the work that they

are getting done through the B.C. Systems Corporation, not through any

fault of the staff there

[ Page 578 ]

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

Now

my question is: in the $1,073,000 allocated for computer services,

going back to 1978-79, I'd like to know how much is actually allocated

to consultants and how much goes to B.C. Systems Corporation. My

understanding is that if you want a job done, and you want it done

fairly quickly, you either do it in-house, or you contract it out. Now

I'd just like that clarified. What proportion of your computer budget

is going out-of-house, and how much is going to B.C. Systems

Corporation?

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

MR. HANSON:

Thank you. Then where do the funds come from to pay consultants when

jobs go outside the B.C. Systems Corporation? Does that come from the

administration fund?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. If we

commission a study, the computer services that have to be used for that

particular study are in the consulting fees. You know, if we commission

a study on something and we have a contract to do — an analysis or

something — the computer fees that that consultant charges are right in

the contract; it's not a separate deal.

MR. HANSON:

So, as I understand it, the consultant may not be an employee of the

B.C. Systems Corporation, but the payment is included in that amount of

money. Is that correct?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the

British Columbia Systems Corporation uses a consultant, it's in this $1

million. If we do an outside consultant study, their computer fees are

in the charge for their services.

MS. SANFORD: I hope

the minister is not going to get too confused, because we're jumping

back and forth here. I want to support the comments made by the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) with respect to the E&N, and to

make a few comments of my own on that particular service.

was pleased the minister asked me the other day about the E&N

service on Vancouver Island, the time at which it leaves and returns to

Victoria, and some questions about the trip itself. I would like to

bring to the attention of the minister tonight, following his questions

the other day, that, as Minister of Tourism, there really is a project

he could undertake to ensure that not only the Minister of Economic

Development and Tourism understands about the E&N service on

Vancouver Island, but that the B.C. Ferry Corporation also does.

have had correspondence from a person here in Victoria who makes a

point of asking the information officers on board the B.C. ferries

about the E&N service. Each time he travels on a ferry he goes to

the tourist counsellor on board and says: "Is there a train on

Vancouver Island? Could I travel on it?" Now what happens is that

tourist counsellor has no knowledge of any train service on Vancouver

Island. The Minister of Tourism, it seems to me, should ensure that

tourist counsellors aboard the B.C. Ferries have that information.

The

answers that this person gets are: "What train? A train on Vancouver

Island? Well, there is a Via Rail service, but it's transcontinental

and has nothing to do with Vancouver Island." These are the kinds of

answers coming from your tourist counsellors aboard the B.C. Ferries.

I would also suggest to the minister that if in fact a Royal Hudson -type

train is placed on the E&N service, it could be utilized in the

wintertime as well. Train service of that type to the Courtenay area

for skiers is something which was initiated a number of years ago, and

should be resumed.

There is an increasing development of skiing facilities in the

Courtenay area; a whole new ski development will be completed for this

next season. I am hopeful the minister will consider obtaining some

kind of additional service so that a ski-train can be initiated. Via

Rail, I am disappointed to say, has not done its job in terms of

advertising the E&N or making information available to people who

wish to use it. They certainly have given no indication that they are

interested in putting on a train which would increase the tourists up

and down the Island, or take care of those skiers who like to flock to

the Courtenay area to enjoy those facilities.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I will certainly look into the counsellors on the ferry system. All of

the Ministry of Tourism counsellors on the ferry system take that trip

at the beginning of the season, but we'll certainly check that one out.

Maybe it's an employee of the ferry system; we'll certainly check it

out. As you know, I've been pretty bullish on Mount Washington and

seeing that particular ski area up there go ahead. I haven't had a

meeting with the E&N people or Via Rail people, but certainly we'll

take a look at that. I think it's an excellent suggestion.

Vote 56 approved.

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

MS. BROWN:

Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. In regard to this organization of the

B.C. public service — the women's economic rights division — I couldn't

find it on the flow chart for the Ministry of Economic Development. But

I am assured that it is still there. I wonder if it fell off somewhere,

and if it would be possible for the minister to tuck it in so that it

will show up next time around. Would you?

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

Vote 57 approved.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 579 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada