1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

923 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Handicapped persons, allowance. Ms. Brown — 923

Alleged improprieties by RCMP in collection of evidence. Mr. Wallace —

Conflict of interest in Matsqui land purchase. Mr. Barber — 925

Composition of Workers' Compensation Board. Ms. Sanford — 925

Policy on Indian cutoff lands. Mr. Gibson — 926

Committee of Supply: Estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.

On vote 79.

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 926

Mr. Macdonald — 927

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 928

Mr. King — 932

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 934

Mr. Gibson — 936

Mr.Loewen — 938

Mr. Macdonald — 940

Mr. Nicolson — 940

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 944

Mr. Wallace — 944

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 948

Mr. Kerster — 948

Mr. Barber — 950

Mr. Nicolson — 954

Tabling reports:

Public Service Labour Relations Act for 1976. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy —

Report of regulations issued pursuant to the Provincial Elections Act during 1976. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 957

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Seated in the gallery today is a group of Victoria citizens from

Victoria's Silver Threads organization. I would ask the members to bid

them welcome.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Also in the gallery today is a

noted resident of Port Alberni, Mrs. Kathleen McMillan, who is down

visiting us in the Legislature along with her sister, Mrs. Catherine

Axhorn, a resident of Victoria. I would ask the members to make them

welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Yesterday in the

city of Victoria the office of Tourism British Columbia opened its

official headquarters, and helping to officiate at that ceremony was

Mrs. Velda Skillings, the widow of Mr. Frank Skillings, who was the

grandchild of Mr. Rithet, the man after whom the original Rithet

building was named. That is not the only famous member of the Skillings

family, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased to share the opening of that

building with another member of the Skillings family. I would like to

announce today that seated in the gallery is a distinguished ex-MLA and

ex-cabinet minister of this House. I would like the House to welcome

Waldo Skillings, the former Economic Development Minister.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have in the gallery today

my wife and three daughters and a very good friend of mine from Texada

Island, Mr. Jan Van Taves. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

We have in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tony Rudiak of Toronto,

formerly of the town of Golden, and I would like the House to join me

in welcoming him.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): In the gallery today is a group

of students from Nanaimo Senior Secondary School accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Tison and Mr. Little, sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming this group of students.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In the gallery today are two people

who represent the strength of part of the agricultural community, and certainly

the strength of the National Farmers Union. They are Mrs. Jean Leahy and Mrs.

Frances Adams. They are here on behalf of the women's interest in the agricultural

industry that they represent.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I'd like to join with my colleague,

the other member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf), in welcoming today the

people from the Silver Threads who have joined us. I hope you're not

too disturbed by what you see going on. I would also like to introduce

to the House the brother of a very good friend of mine. His name is Tom

MacDonald and he's from the fine province of Nova Scotia. He's happily

no relation to the fast-food chain. I hope you'll join us in making him

welcome.

Oral questions.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS' ALLOWANCE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to

the Minister of Human Resources. I noticed he was on his feet, so I

hope he's preparing to answer. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Speaker, whether you're going to exercise your discretionary

powers on behalf of Mr. Bob Newman and allow him to keep the $300 which

he received as compensation for being brutally beaten seven months ago

by two thugs.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, I will now take the opportunity of replying to this question,

which was also asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace.)

Mr. Newman is in receipt of HPIA benefits of $265 monthly, and he

earns $50 monthly hooking rugs on the incentive programme. He recently

received $300 in criminal injuries compensation payments. During a

conversation with his social workers, he indicated that payments had

been received. At this juncture the social worker informed Mr. Newman

in the following manner: one, that the income had to be reported; and

two, that he should make an appointment with the social worker to

discuss possible exemption.

Under federal cost-sharing regulations — and these have been in

effect for a long time, Mr. Speaker — unearned income must be deducted

from the amount of the benefit. However, there is sufficient latitude

in the regulations to allow exemptions on a needs basis. However,

despite all the publicity this case engendered, Mr. Newman has not yet

met with his social worker to make the necessary needs assessment.

Therefore not only does Mr. Newman's criticism appear somewhat

premature, but it is impossible, due to his reluctance to make the

requested appointment for the necessary assessment,

[ Page 924 ]

to indicate to this House the amount of exemption. I can assure this House,

however, that Mr. Newman will be afforded the same consideration given any recipient

and that any benefit exemption will conform to the federal-provincial regulations

that have been in effect for several years.

MS. BROWN: I have a very brief supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

Under the previous administration, I think, as the minister pointed

out, there were regulations that allowed for the exemption of a certain

amount of windfall income that came to people in receipt of either

social assistance or the handicapped pension. I'm wondering, Mr.

Minister, whether you would take this into account when you are doing

an assessment of Mr. Newman's situation and allow him to keep the $300

which he has received in compensation for his beating.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the regulations, as they

have been in effect for a considerable time. Certainly we are

attempting to work within the regulations; we will always work within

the regulations. The regulations do allow the latitude, as I expressed,

for some discretion with respect to need. There is certainly no

indication, and never was there any indication by this ministry, that

we wouldn't give full effect to that latitude. But we certainly cannot

know in advance. This happened to appear in the press before,

apparently, anyone knew about it including the social worker who has

regular contact with this person.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the minister if he's considered whether this really is income. Is

it not damages equivalent to the damages received in a motor vehicle

accident — not taxable, not considered income under the national

taxation statutes and, therefore, not anything deductible whatsoever

from his allowance? That's the short answer to it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the regulation, of which,

perhaps, the member for Vancouver East wouldn't be aware, as he didn't

have that particular portfolio in the prior administration, doesn't

spell out what type of income or how much of this type of income.

MR. MACDONALD: It isn't income at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose the amount could vary in this

type of payment. The amount could vary anywhere from $300 to $30,000 —

I'm not sure — or $3,000. This would have to be considered in

accordance with the regulations. But this is the first time that the

ministry has been faced with a situation like this, so there is no

precedent.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'm still on a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It goes to this broader principle of

whether these funds are income. I would ask the minister, in making his

consideration, to wonder whether this is compensation for very sad wear

and tear on the human body and not the kind of income that any of us

would want to go out and earn.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this incident brings up an

interesting matter for the minister, which is that his department takes

the income of any sort for people in receipt of pensions, of

handicapped or welfare....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, what is your supplementary question?

MS. BROWN: My supplementary is: is the minister going to take

advantage of this marvellous opportunity to reconsider what the

regulations consider as income? If you're not in receipt of welfare,

you can get damages. But if you are in receipt of welfare, everything

is considered income and that's grossly unfair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to

discuss now the fairness or the unfairness of it. Certainly I would be

prepared, and always am, to receive submissions on this type of

subject. But I would like to assure the hon. member that one of the

reasons why the province received very little sharing compared to,

perhaps, other areas, and why we lost many shareable dollars that

should have been coming to British Columbia from Ottawa, is that the

previous administration perhaps not only didn't know what the

regulations were but certainly paid little attention to those that were

in effect. This is a two-way street and we must work in cooperation

with Ottawa to bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number of

people. If we irresponsibly start ignoring regulations that have been

brought into effect for good reason, you can expect trouble.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): In respect to the

regulations, there has been a policy of exempting windfalls. However,

surely, Mr. Minister, it is possible in this particular case to grant

the money. Then what would happen, of course, is that the province

would not be able to share in the expenditures on this particular case.

It does not in any way affect your agreement with Ottawa for all cases

but purely this case. That was the practice we used in the previous

government.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your supplementary question, hon. member?

[ Page 925 ]

MR. LEVI: If they will exempt this particular case and pay it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we will deal with this

case as it ought to be dealt with. I can assure the member that this

will be in a very responsible manner, and so will all of these be dealt

with in a responsible manner.

ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES BY RCMP

IN COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General, regarding evidence given at a recent trial. In the

murder trial of David Ross in Nanaimo, evidence was presented that one

of the witnesses was questioned non-stop for 23 hours until he broke

down completely, and that this witness was then offered $50,000 and

safe passage to Australia, plus immunity from prosecution, if he would

provide evidence. I would like to ask if the Attorney-General has been

made aware of what appear to be highly questionable practices by the

RCMP. If so, has the Attorney-General ordered any investigation in this

particular case?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I received

a memorandum this morning to the effect that a complete report will be

on my desk on February 21. I'll respond to your question at that time.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? I'm

not specifically referring to this case, but there was a recent drug

trial where another witness, I understand, was offered $25,000 to give

evidence. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can tell the House if

it is a regular practice for police investigators to offer large sums

of money to potential witnesses for their evidence, and whether, in

fact, in the cases that have occurred in recent months the Attorney —

General and his department have been consulted prior to the decision to

make such large payments, or if this was within the jurisdiction of the

prosecutor at the time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take it as notice today.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

IN MATSQUI LAND PURCHASE

MR. BARBER: My questions are to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing. It concerns the allegations of conflict of

interest in the purchase of certain properties in the Matsqui district

by MSA Development Ltd., and in particular by the local treasurer, Mr.

McIntyre. My first question to the minister is: has he received the

report and documentation sent to him several months ago — or has he

been able to trace it, as it's evidently gone astray — by the newspaper

that first raised this matter? Has he received the matter or has he

been able to trace these matters?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I was notified

yesterday that some material had been sent. Subject to correction, it

appears that the material which was sent was in fact a newspaper

clipping. I don't expect the inspector of municipalities to respond —

with all due respect to the press — to a newspaper story.

I am informed, however — and this may lead into the member's second

question or supplementary — that the mayor of Matsqui has

correspondence en route to my office now. It has not yet been received.

MR. BARBER: We're pretty good friends, Mr. Speaker, and he's

anticipated my supplementary. I have received some other information

and I'd be happy to share it with you. I presumed that you had received

all of it. My question is: is the minister prepared to order an

inquiry, should the information which I will provide, the newspapers

provided, and the mayor provides, indicate that there are sufficient

grounds for inquiry into these charges of conflict of interest on the

purchase of this particular property?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The inspector of municipalities views very

seriously any material which is placed before him or his staff relating

to alleged irregular conduct or impropriety in any municipality or in

any local government jurisdiction, including regional districts. I

don't order the inquiry; it is referred to the inspector of

municipalities. I'm sure the hon. member is familiar with

section 728

of the Municipal Act which sets out the steps that are — to be

followed. But I emphasize that the inspector and this minister

certainly view seriously any allegations with respect to improper

conduct in local government by elected or appointed officials.

COMPOSITION OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Labour. The IWA has presented a brief to the minister

calling on him to fire all of the commissioners of the Workers'

Compensation Board. I'm wondering if the minister has made a decision

on that request.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): In response to the member's question, I have not made a decision on that request. The decision is not mine to

[ Page 926 ]

make.

MS. SANFORD: With respect to the Workers' Compensation Board,

the minister has taken as notice a series of questions that relate to

the number of people interviewed for chairman of that board, which

certainly is his responsibility — the number of people who applied, the

number of people who are still waiting — in addition to another series

of questions on the Workers' Compensation Board. I'm wondering if he's

prepared to answer those at this time. That is three weeks ago, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the minister has

had any discussions with the Premier on the matter of replacing him as

Minister of Labour with someone who might be able to do the job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

POLICY ON INDIAN CUTOFF LANDS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same minister on a

different subject. On January 12 of this year the minister stated that

he hoped to have a federal-provincial position on Indian cutoff lands

to present to the Indian negotiators within a month. The month has now

passed; I wonder if he could tell us how that stands at the moment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am still awaiting a

response from the federal minister to the matters which were discussed

between us at a meeting in Calgary. My office has been in touch with

the federal minister's office. We are told that correspondence is being

prepared to send here for the meeting, as is being suggested by the

federal minister. Like you, Mr. Member, I'm becoming impatient with the

delay.

Orders of the day.

The House in committee of supply; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 79: minister's office, $141,324 — continued.

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

Chairman, yesterday afternoon in the House there were what I consider

to be some very serious allegations made with regard to a particular

civil servant in my ministry. I thought I would like to inform the

House of the complete circumstances surrounding this particular

occasion because I don't mind being dragged through the gutter myself,

but I don't think that we should attack civil servants.

With regard to the charge made by the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) implying improper performance of the duties of this

civil servant, first of all, Mr. Worsley is the director of industrial

locations in the Ministry of Economic Development. The industrial

locations division has the objective of working closely with regional

districts and local governments in all parts of the province to provide

guidance and assistance in helping them to improve the climate for

business and industrial development in their jurisdictions. Also, they

help to co-ordinate their efforts with the provincial government

departments and agencies.

The specific objectives of this division are: to act as a catalyst

with various communities in co-ordinating their activities with broader

provincial industrial development objectives; to assist in the

identification of suitable sites for major industry; and to ensure that

each community will have sufficient industrial land to allow for

expansion of local industries and for the accommodation of new

industry; to assist in the documentation and correlation of regional

economic, geological, engineering, environmental and social data as it

relates to industrial development in each community.

This gentleman was not seconded to Finning Tractor, nor has he ever

been seconded to any company. In performing his co-ordinating role to

help facilitate industrial development in British Columbia, he did not

go to Sparwood, but rather made all his contact by phone, mail and

inter-departmental meetings.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I notice that the member for Vancouver Centre,

who made these allegations, is not in the House, so maybe when he

returns — perhaps some of his party could relay the message to him — I

think he should apologize.

But this brings up a subject which I have identified in this House

before. I have correspondence here from Sparwood, which for the

edification of the House I might point out.

I mentioned in the House last week that economic development would

go to communities that want economic development. However, there is one

other aspect of this. That particular community may want economic

development, but may have its hands tied by other departments of the

government.

I just want to quote from the letter sent to Mr. Worsley on May 11

from the district of Sparwood, because I think it's very interesting.

This letter was sent to Mr. Worsley from the municipal clerk in the

district of Sparwood.

"It should be noted that Finning is

[ Page 927 ]

proposing a rather large development that engages a

considerable number of local residents. A development of this magnitude

should be a definite asset to the economic stability of Sparwood and

should only be discouraged for very sound reasons, and then only if

such reasons cannot be overcome by restrictions or conditions."

In another letter dated June 11, along the same lines, and from the

same municipal clerk, she says that she has written a second time for a

decision. I think she shares the sentiments not only of municipalities

but of industry trying to locate in certain parts of the province. She

says:

"Needless to say, the land development and subdivision

process in this area is somewhat frustrating. The two industries —

Kaiser and Crows Nest Industries — cannot seem to come to terms. These

firms, along with the Department of Highways, the department of water

resources and the Land Commission, would discourage even the most

persistent would-be subdivider. Any assistance you could give would be

appreciated."

As I said, I merely quote this because I think it tells us of the

frustrations that many industries and many communities are having in

trying to bring economic expansion and to provide jobs in this

province. That is one of the reasons that the committee of economic

planning has identified this problem.

With the cooperation of the Ministry of Economic Development, the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Highways and

Public Works and other ministries in the government, having identified

the problem, have sat down to outline some rules, regulations and

guidelines so that these communities, hopefully, will not be suffering

the same frustration that they have in the past and will suffer in the

future. Hopefully, they will invite industry and economic development

to their communities, and hopefully, we have made a great step forward

into paving the road to making it easier for economic expansion to take

place in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, hon. members, I would like to draw your attention to the 18th edition of May , under general restrictions on debate on supply. May says:

"Regarding the general conduct of debate on supply, it

may be observed that remarks on the conduct of a servant of the state

made on the estimate containing his salary must be restricted to his

official conduct only and that the actions of a high public servant

cannot be criticized only upon substantive motion."

I would like to draw that to the attention of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on the Worsley matter, I noticed

the minister didn't quote any language from the first member for

Vancouver Centre which criticized Worsley. I didn't understand that he

criticized Worsley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

MR. MACDONALD: He didn't think there was propriety in Finning

having a member on the BCDC board and then Worsley going out to help

them with a subdivision. Do you think that's right, Mr. Premier? I

think it's wrong, myself, that a member of a board like BCDC who comes

from a company should enlist the services of that department to assist

them with their business dealings. You think it's right, eh? This is

the new order in British Columbia! There's a whole different set of

ethics in the course of one year under the Social Credit government.

Apparently that's all right. You can put a man on the Energy

Commission, and then in an energy matter he can invoke the help of the

Department of Energy with his own business. I don't know.

Well, it's quite a transformation in a very short space of time. But

I didn't rise to get the Premier up because he's preaching a whole new

set of ethics here and I've got lots of time to listen to that —

another year or two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair, hon. member?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying the minister is a

book burner, but you have the Coal Task Force report commissioned by

the former minister in two parts. The first

part is of the technical

subcommittee of the Coal Task Force, and that I have. Any member can

get that in the library. But volume 2, the spicy part that tells us

about the coal resources of British Columbia, the rail costs, the

terminal wharfage facilities that are needed to ship it out, the

townsites, the labour problem, the costs of transportation — all of

these things — has been surreptitiously published and not distributed

to the members of the Legislature. There are only 13 copies of volume 2

printed and distributed to members of a cabinet committee.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, oh! Thirteen! The unlucky minister!

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. Liberal leader was saying the other

day that some of this should be public. While this material is

suppressed — and that was never the intention of the Coal Task Force;

it should give us a lot of technical data about the

[ Page 928 ]

Bullmoose claim and the others, which is important

— certainly in the case of energy resources, when the Energy Commission

made a report on field prices, or whatever it was, that was immediately

made public even though it contained policy recommendations to the

government. And it should be, you know. If you had a freedom of

information Act you wouldn't be able to suppress reports like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: And while you suppressed them you have

companies like British Petroleum who approached Brameda-Teck on the

coal leases around Sukunka, and they are paying up to $30 million — $28

million to Brameda and $1.2 million to Teck — to purchase coal leases.

Now I ask the minister: when that kind of activity is going on, when

there is speculation in resource licences and exploration permits in

the province, and when private companies like Teck and Brameda are

making a very good thing out of the speculative market in exploratory

coal licences, not leases — they've never advanced to that stage — is

it not right that the public who are watching that game can follow it

in an intelligent way by seeing the policy recommendations of the Coal

Task Force?

If the public can't see it and the members of the Legislature can't

see it, how can we evaluate whether this was just another speculative

adventure? Those coal leases around Sukunka started with Pine Pass, eh?

They were discovered a long time ago. Then Brameda came in and paid so

much, and then Teck came in and got 47 per cent of Brameda and paid so

much. Then Brascan came in with an option to buy and dropped the

option. All the way along the road millions of dollars were being made

in the speculative transfer of coal licences. Now British Petroleum

comes along, and surely it must have had access to the kind of

information that I am saying the members of this House are not having.

Does the minister say that the second volume contents were not made

available to British Petroleum and that they blindly are going to lay

out $30 million of their own money to purchase 20 coal licences out of

the 25? It's not the whole thing at all — just 20 of them. The good

one, the Gates sector — which is pit mining, I believe — the shallow

one, is not included in the deal.

Did they pay out that money without knowing something that you're

denying the members of the Legislature? There's only one way to go, Mr.

Chairman. I should talk to you. There's only one way to go with public

documents and public reports, and that's to let all of the people see

them when they come into your office. There's no alternative to that.

The minister is bound to have had talks with British Petroleum. They

would never have invested $30 million in licences in B.C. unless they

had some assurance that some money was going to be paid by the

provincial government. They wouldn't do that blind, would they, Mr.

Minister? Did they have access to the contents of volume 2, which is on

your desk, and to one of the 13 copies that are available?

MR. GIBSON: They must have known something.

MR. MACDONALD: They must. They know more than we do in the

Legislature, and we're the elected representatives of the people. This

is not letting the sun shine in. If there was a freedom of information

bill passed, this kind of thing could not happen.

I am asking the minister specifically: will you table volume 2, of

which there are now 13 copies? We'll be glad to run off the extra ones.

Table one and we'll make copies. It will be a valuable document. Will

you table that volume 2, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Economic Development.

MS. BROWN: Oh, there's a new Minister of Economic Development!

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): About time!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Premier.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I fortunately

wasn't here last week when most of what passes for debate from the

opposition was spouted forth in this House, but judging from reading Hansard

I missed nothing more than the usual series of insults, half-truths and

nothing constructive from the opposition at all. Mr. Chairman, that

wasn't so bad that that type of attack was continued in this House by

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who has not brought

dignity to this House this session, has not brought any credit to the

parliamentary system and, in fact, has made a series of charges and

statements that he's been afraid to back up or say outside the House

where he is not guaranteed legislative immunity and privilege. He, in

fact, is taking advantage of this House and abuses this House, and it

brings shame to all of us in this House. The fact that that member

yesterday, in his continuing attack, chose to try and bring an attack

on a public servant of this province...

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Read the Blues!

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): You're twisting again!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...is indicative of the depths to which that member and that party will

[ Page 929 ]

stoop in order to continue the vendetta against

this government and the people who threw them out of office in

December, 1975. Now if the people of B.C. expect action from the

government, they also expect intelligent discussion from the

opposition. We're willing to take suggestions on how to better this

province. But reading through the debate that went on last week while I

was in Ottawa, dealing, incidentally, with initiatives proposed by this

minister, initiatives that should have been taken years ago while that

party was in government.... It's a sad commentary on the state of

disarray into which that party's fallen that they have to continue to

resort to these types of tactics — particularly the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is the former Minister of Economic

Development in the government that was the New Democratic Party, and

who continues to carry on a vendetta against this minister, solely

because in 14 months this minister has done more for this province than

that minister did and that government did, and solely because, Mr.

Chairman, that minister not only did nothing but created part of the

problems for this province. In a government of disasters, he was the

major disaster.

It wasn't a matter of getting this province going. This province was

going when we took over, but it was going downhill. It was in stopping

that slide, Mr. Chairman, and getting it stopped and getting all areas

of this province moving that was the challenge that was given to the

present Minister of Economic Development. That minister has taken on

responsibility for what was the No. 1 failure of the last government —

the No. 1 failure in providing jobs, in providing economic planning and

providing opportunity in this province.

It's that sad state in our history — from 1972 to 1975 — when the

basis for the continuing unemployment that we took over was created.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the most alarming statistic of all

for which that administration and that former minister, who has made

these unfounded charges many times in this House this year, will be

remembered is that between 1972 and 1975 British Columbia's share of

the world trade or export market has dropped from 0.711 per cent to

just 0.467 per cent. That's a one-third drop during the term of office

of that former government. And that member, who initiated what I

consider to be the height of an insult to this House, a non-confidence

motion in this minister yesterday, was the man responsible. He was the

man who should have been building this province and getting it going.

Yet after the voters have dealt with that government and that minister,

he continues to try and explain away their failure by attacking the

present minister, who's provided more planning and more opportunity for

this province in just 14 or 15 months.

This minister, Mr. Chairman, has created initiatives in the DREE

programme that we've taken to Ottawa. Everyone knows that British

Columbia hasn't had its share of DREE dollars and federal dollars in

creating economic opportunities in this province, because the last

government did not take the opportunity to meet their commitment to

this province and the people who are now — and were when we became

government — unemployed. They did not take advantage of programmes, as

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has said. They

didn't even bother to read the regulations or the manual, and this

province lost dollars not only in economic programmes but in services

and programmes for people. All because you didn't understand that you

had to deal with the government in Ottawa. They have provided

programmes and you missed the boat.

We only got $6 per capita in DREE. What did they get in other

provinces? They got anywhere up to $86 per capita in the Atlantic

provinces. But in British Columbia we got just $6, because they never

took advantage of the programmes that were there.

When I was in Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, I was not there initiating

programmes, but taking the opportunity and advantage of all the work

done by this Minister of Economic Development in making proposals to

Ottawa: in DREE; in the incentives programme; in ARDA; in the northern

road programme. They were detailed proposals that until now haven't

been forthcoming from British Columbia. They were not forthcoming under

the last government, to the detriment of our people and our province.

But under this minister we've made definite proposals to do something

to get this province moving not downward but upward and forward again,

to create some employment not just in specific areas of the province

but in the whole of the province, and to provide economic opportunity

for the whole of the province, not just for selected areas.

This minister and his department have been working on a crash programme because....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right — a crash programme of activity, Mr. Chairman....

MR. KING: Crash Phillips!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...a crash programme of economic proposals because of the lack of action taken before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crash Phillips!

[ Page 930 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll deal with the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) in a moment. I'll deal with you in a moment.

MS. SANFORD: Another 20,000 unemployed in the last month.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this minister has created

definite proposals that we will hopefully sign with the government in

Ottawa to meet the April I starting date on five-year programmes — not

just cosmetic ones for window-dressing, but programmes that will attack

the real root of the economic difficulties that face our province,

programmes that will meet the needs of all areas of the province. I say

that minister deserves full credit.

It's not surprising that this government is getting renewed interest

from the rest of Canada as suddenly being aware of our greater

responsibility in taking advantage of these programmes and coming into

what is called Canada, because, apparently, this didn't happen under

the last government or the last minister. Yet that former minister who

made attack after attack in this House isn't even present today, after

making very serious charges against a public servant yesterday.

MR. SKELLY: You're twisting the facts, as usual.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this

minister has not only had the responsibility for building the economy

but he's also had responsibility for two very key Crown corporations...

MR. SKELLY: And several royal commissions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...the B.C. Railway and the B.C.

Development Corporation. He's made strong moves to try and solve some

of the problems of both those corporations. He more than anyone has

worked to meet the commitment we made to bring in a non-political board

of directors...

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on!

MS. BROWN: You're too much.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...to bring in people of ability. And the

first, second or third member for Vancouver East today stands up and

attacks one of these members of this board...

MR. MACDONALD: Who?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...because he suggests that we should only

have losers leading our Crown corporations. He doesn't want successful

people who can do something for the province. His suggestion is to

continue their practice of appointing losers to key positions. Well,

this government is going to challenge British Columbians out there —

people of ability and commitment to this province, not necessarily to

some political doctrine as they are committed to on that side of the

House, but people who are concerned about their province, who are

willing to take the directorships in these Crown corporations for the

good of the province.

I think it's an insult — and you should applaud that — that when

these people are prepared to make this sacrifice that some people — and

some members of this House, Mr. Chairman — for cheap political

advantage will try and drag their names and their motives and their

intentions down in this House, where they have immunity and privilege,

and will make it practically impossible for us to continue to attract

the people of ability who have been forthcoming so far. I think it's a

shame that in desperation for issues, the former Attorney-General and

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is so concerned about holding

on to his seat from the assault from the rear by Bob Williams that he

has to stoop to attacking one of the directors of the B.C. Development

Corporation.

Mr. Chairman, this House should be above this type of politics. I

was hopeful that perhaps the opposition, along with all members of this

House, would try and deal with the very serious problems of the economy

of British Columbia as this minister has done. He's dealt with the

railway and a new board of directors, and with the B.C. Development

Corporation. Those directors have taken hold and, in the case of the

railway, those directors have moved in on what were labour difficulties

and labour problems. I'm sure the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr.

King), as the former labour minister and a director of the railway,

full well understands how those problems develop, when many of the

difficulties were initiated. I'm sure he is concerned, along with the

rest of us, that those problems will be resolved permanently.

They've moved into the problem of construction; those directors have

moved into the areas of planning for the future — new routes and new

commodities that that railway will carry — to help them in their job.

This railway has more than financial difficulties; this railway has

been the centre of a political storm. The government has called on a

royal commission to look into all aspects of that railway. I expect the

commissioners to look into all aspects of that railway, including all

construction contracts with all companies, and the action of all

directors and management.

I expect that all the members of this House who have been speaking

under legislative immunity will make their same remarks to the council

under oath.

[ Page 931 ]

They'll have that opportunity. I know the member for Vancouver

Centre isn't here. He didn't, apparently, deliver a speech in this

House for which he circulated speech notes that I consider the

commission should be interested in. But I have a copy of them and I'd

be pleased to send them to the commission under his name. All he has to

do is show up and acknowledge them.

Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that that commission will provide an

opportunity and a forum for all those to prove to the public that they

are concerned with the railroad and not just cheap political advantage,

that they're willing to back up their statements and not abuse the

privilege of this House. I expect all of them to make the same

statements to that commission that they've made in this Legislative

Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, this minister is a good minister. This minister is an

outstanding minister who has tackled some of the most important areas

of the sad legacy that was left to us by the NDP. His hasn't been a

two-hour day, or a four-hour day, or a six-hour day; it has been long

hours seven days a week ever since this government came to office. If

the former cabinet had collectively put in as many hours as this

minister, this province wouldn't have been in the sorry mess it was the

day we took over.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This province would be better off if he only worked two hours a day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, you're right, Mr. Member for

Mackenzie. We'd have been better off if some of your former ministers

had never shown up at all. (Laughter.) I'm always willing to take your

advice, and once again you've passed the best comment on your

colleagues.

MS. BROWN: Distortionist!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to thank you.

I'd like to question the Liberal leader, the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). Yesterday he stood in the House and

quoted figures concerning northeast coal. I'd like to caution him on

the indiscriminate use of hypothetical figures plucked out of

somewhere, because two things are going on now in the northern part of

this province: studies into a northern transportation system that will

provide another major port for Canada and British Columbia, a major

port that will deal with many commodities to take the pressure off and

give security to the grain farmers who complain whenever the Vancouver

ports are shut down or crowded or unable to ship their product. It is a

very important commodity for Canada: a west coast port one day closer

to the Orient; a transportation access that has better grades and

easier access, in fact; a port in a transportation route that was

initially to be the major transportation system across British

Columbia. It was to carry the original silk trains from the Orient to

New York. It's an area and a transportation system that has been

neglected for many years and not given opportunity.

That transportation system is of importance to British Columbia, but

it's of greater importance to Canada. It can provide the additional

access for potash from Saskatchewan, or raw materials, or finished

products. It can carry grain from Alberta; it can carry other

commodities as well. One of the major commodities that can make that

northern transportation system a reality is the bringing on stream of

northeast coal.

Along with that transportation system being studied by two

Columbia — it is also involving studies by two railways — the British

Columbia Railway and the CNR. It has also brought together, along with

governments, utilities and transportation systems, the private sector.

All three of those areas are conducting studies into the viability and

costs connected with the development of this major resource. They are

also dealing with the price and contract that could be achieved for

this important commodity.

I know that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, in quoting

end-product figures or contract figures, is well aware that you can't

apply the figures that are presently in force in the southeast because

of the higher quality of the northeast coal. I'm sure he's aware of

that. Because of its higher quality, Mr. Chairman, studies into the

value of that coal under contract are part of the continuing studies

that are going on between the governments, the private companies and

the transportation system.

It's premature to toss out speculative figures. Mr. Chairman, when

all the facts are in as a result of the studies that are going on now —

when all of the studies are completed, when the facts are in — I'd like

this House to know that that information will be shared with British

Columbians. However, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano has good

connections in Ottawa. He might ask whether they are releasing the

figures. They are part of the agreement.

MR. GIBSON: Would you like them to?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He might have one of the opposition in their House raise the question to them.

MR. GIBSON: Give the word!

HON. MR. BENNETT: But, Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that he does no service to the public's understanding of the problem by frivolously tossing

[ Page 932 ]

out figures prematurely, before all of the studies are in.

What this ministry is trying to do, and what this government is

trying to do, is work closely with all of the components I have

mentioned to develop an economic plan that will help not only northern

British Columbia, but also all of the province and, in fact, will be a

major economic factor to our country, a factor in international balance

of payments proposed, and a factor in giving us an additional west

coast export facility and transportation link much needed in this

country. We are positive about this proposal, but it would be foolhardy

to plunge ahead and announce its initiation before all of the facts are

in.

What this minister is doing, what this department is doing, and what

this government is doing, is continuing to work, utilizing all of the

experts and all of the resources that are at hand, for government to

come up with the type of information that will allow us to make the

types of decisions that are as important as this decision will be to

this province. It is important that all of this planning and research

go into it before committing governments, companies, transportation

systems to the hundreds of millions of dollars that may be involved in

the projects and a commodity of this size.

I will say that this minister, with the initiative he has shown, has

brought the reality of that project two years closer to British

Columbia and Canada today than any other minister of government could

have. He has cut through red tape and he's initiated action in our own

government that many thought couldn't have taken place in such a short

period of time. The action they have shown — and I give credit to his

department — has prompted the same initiative and the same type of

have developed a strong working relationship, but that relationship and

that effort had to start somewhere. It started not just with people. It

started with one man — one man who was given the responsibility for

developing an economic plan for this province to bring us out of the

doldrums, and an economic plan to provide some stability to this

province. We were fortunate that when we were elected we had such a

man, and that man is the present Minister of Economic Development.

I'd like to say to you that when this province starts to develop the

type of economic impetus we had before our unfortunate three-and-a-half

year experiment with that group over there, when that impetus returns,

and that job opportunity, and that investment opportunity is once again

part of British Columbia, we can look not to a government, but we can

look to one man for making it all happen. I am pleased to speak out and

say that that minister has my support, he has the support of his

colleagues, but he also has the support of the people of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. members, I would very much like to

introduce to the assembly a grade 10 class from the Convent of the

Sacred Heart school — which, I may say, my wife went to at one time —

in company with my very good friend, Sister Connelly. We all wish you

the very best in Victoria today.

MR. KING: Every time that I think the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett's

little boy is starting to mature into a competent politician, he blows

it. I'm extremely disappointed and embarrassed for the government by

the performance we just witnessed from the Premier. I see him heading

for the door now. I wish he would stick around for a while...

MR. WALLACE: Hit and run!

MR. KING: and learn some of the facts that go on in this

House. Apparently he either can't read, or he has been misinformed in

his absence in Ottawa about what transpired in the House during the

week or so. Mr. Chairman, the opposition has indeed offered

constructive criticism of the Economic Development minister's portfolio

and his handling of it. We have offered criticism, as we are bound to

do as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No answers!

MR. KING: The point that troubles me, Mr. Chairman, is that

the Premier seems to have some misconception about the role of

parliament and about the role of the official opposition. He seems to

feel that there is something improper about discussing the conduct of

ministers and, indeed, the civil service in this chamber.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Just keep it out of the gutter.

MR. KING: He seems to challenge and taunt everyone that they

should be discussing the province's business out in the corridors or

out in the public forum somewhere. Certainly there is an opportunity

for that at election time, but this chamber, under our parliamentary

customs, Mr. Chairman, is the forum where the conduct of a minister's

administration and the expenditure of government funds are viewed and

questioned by the opposition members. I find it curious that the

Premier of the province objects to that procedure. Perhaps that speaks

something of the arrogance that this government has learned in just

over a year in office, because they seem to resent the opposition even

deigning to question what the ministers have

[ Page 933 ]

done.

I find it absolutely laughable, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier comes

on with a eulogy or some kind of statement of support for the Minister

of Economic Development and talks about him getting the province

moving. The minister has yet to present to this Legislature any plan,

any economic thrust which he has underway which would start to come to

grips with the 112,000 people that are unemployed in the province. Our

government had undertaken initiatives, such as the steel mill, such as

the Afton Mine at Kamloops, which mercifully has been allowed to

continue. But the steel mill and certainly some of the coal

developments have been interrupted and halted by this government and

that minister's conduct. Is it any wonder that members on this side of

the House query the conduct of that minister?

We have seen the highest executive in his office dismissed

summarily, apparently for cause, by the minister, accused of dealing in

stocks through inside information emanating from that minister's

office. We have seen the man's constituency secretary dismissed and

we've seen two other members of the British Columbia Petroleum

Corporation, which is an agency he has some authority for too, also

lose their jobs. Is it any wonder that the opposition is questioning

the integrity of that man's office, Mr. Chairman?

For the Premier to come in with that kind of shallow defence is not only laughable, I think it's insulting to this chamber.

The Premier is fond of talking about new initiatives that the

government is undertaking with the federal government to obtain sharing

in a variety of programmes with the province of British Columbia. Now

the Premier apparently doesn't know much about the history of British

Columbia. I can tell you that when we assumed office in 1972, we found

that we were indeed losing vast sums of shared capital from the federal

source, mainly, and I say solely, as a direct consequence of former

Premier W.A.C. Bennett's empty-chair policy in Ottawa. Remember the

federal — provincial conferences where B.C. was represented by an empty

chair? The Premier of that day, the Social Credit father of the son

here, didn't even find it appropriate to travel down to Ottawa and

participate in discussions on what B.C.'s share of national revenue

should be.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that within the Department of

Education and within the Department of Labour, we were losing $18

million a year for vocational training costs as a result of the former

Social Credit government ignoring federal-provincial discussions. If

the son of the father objects to that policy, he should have had a talk

to his dad years ago and turned things around so that we would have

been on a par in terms of equality in federal funds with the rest of

the provinces in Canada. My colleague, the former Minister of

Education, and I were able, and that can be demonstrated beyond any

question, to bring about greater parity and greater opportunity for

British Columbia to collect those training dollars, and, in fact, did

so.

There was a whole variety of areas where B.C. was suffering on a

per-capita comparison with the other provinces. Now it's true that

there's probably still some of those areas left. But rather than the

Premier coming in here and trying to point the finger at the NDP

government, he should know that that policy was one that evolved over

many years as a result of neglect by his predecessor, his father.

The Premier and the Minister of Economic Development got up today,

Mr. Chairman, and they talked about innuendo; they talked about attacks

on civil servants; they talked about apologies to the House. I want to

say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the benefits of the three years in

office that the New Democratic Party brought to this province — one of

the minor benefits, but certainly a significant one — was Hansard ,

a verbatim record of debates in this House. It's fine for ministers and

the Premier to get up and twist and distort speeches that are made in

this House, but I advise, Mr. Chairman, people to read the printed

record.

Our first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) did not accuse any

public servant of any misdemeanour. He simply questioned the propriety

of someone involved in the industrial development bank at the same time

representing a private client.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that's the proper function of the

opposition. The government members who are shouting "smear" should

recognize that when we have seven different judicial or royal

commission inquiries going in this province at one time, there usually

is some foundation for the questions that the opposition raises on the

floor of this House. Otherwise, how do you justify the expenditure of

hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds in judicial inquiries

to get to the bottom of impropriety which has been visited upon this

province since your government was elected.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Your innuendo.

MR. KING: Innuendo. Well, Mr. Chairman, if my friend for

Burnaby down there is seriously suggesting that the government is

spending public funds to clear up innuendo with respect to MEL Paving,

with respect to the Grizzly Valley affair, with respect to certain

municipal land dealing, then that's a terrible indictment of his

government. That's a terrible indictment. If there is no substance to

the charges, what would the government be prepared to spend the

taxpayers' dollars for on the public increase?

[ Page 934 ]

MR. LOEWEN: Smear!

MR. KING: Nonsense, and irresponsible. Of course there is

substance. Even if there is not, the opposition in this House is the

watchdog of the public interest. If we have here a government that has

become so arrogant that the Premier gets up and challenges members to

repeat outside and talks about investigating members of the opposition

— as he did a week ago — who questioned government action, we're moving

toward dictatorship in this province. It's no longer parliamentary

government but arrogant dictatorship. That's what it is and I have

never seen an attitude like this in British Columbia before.

Certainly the former Social Credit government was pretty entrenched

and pretty archaic in some of their views. But the former Social Credit

Premier did have a basic respect and understanding of the British

parliamentary system which seems to be completely absent from this

group, Mr. Chairman. I think it's an absolutely dangerous trend.

Certainly the opposition has a responsibility to be mature and to not

put forward suggestions that are going to be damaging to any

individual. But to infer that questions asked about the conduct of

office are a personal attack on civil servants is wrong. It's not borne

out by the record of debate. It apparently is an attempt to distort the

facts and to discourage the opposition from fulfilling the role for

which the people of British Columbia sent us down here. That's to make

sure that this government acts with all propriety; that they are

expending the public funds in a proper and responsible way; that

friends of the government, on the basis of patronage or of party

affiliation, are not benefiting over the average citizen of this

province. That is the role of the opposition. I want to say, Mr.

Chairman, that no one over here intends to be deterred by condescending

lectures from the Premier of the province or anyone else. So if you

can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, because we intend to sit

here and we intend to keep this government honest, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, those were very interesting

remarks from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Chairman, it is

"leader," isn't it? Yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's trying to become the leader.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there have been statements made in this Legislature that I went to Japan and killed the steel mill deal...

MS. BROWN: You sure did!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...which the member for Vancouver Centre

alleges was in the bag. I would just like to point out to the members

that there are only three new blast-furnace steel mills proceeding in

the world today: one for Stelco, the Nanticoke mill at Lake Erie — and

it's slowed down. As a matter of fact, in an

article in the paper dated

November 18, it says: "Peter Gordon, chairman of the Steel Company of

Canada Limited (Stelco), said Wednesday that the company will not

operate its Nanticoke steel mill until the beginning of 1980 because

steel demand is growing more slowly than predicted."

Ogashima, in Japan, which is a consolidation of three old mills, is

being constructed but it's not to bring on at the present time; and the

Brazil — and there's an interesting fact: 40 per cent of the costs of

the steel mill in Brazil are being subsidized by the state plus tax

write-offs to make steel internationally competitive.

MR. MACDONALD: Why did you go to Japan?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member for Vancouver East says, why did I go to Japan? I went to Japan to come to an amicable conclusion of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to wind it up, to bury it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member for Vancouver East does

not understand the plain facts. He's demonstrated that several times in

the House with regard to economic development. You should stick to law.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't answered the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now the other mills — a mill in west

Australia, a mill in Nova Scotia and a mill in the U.S.A. — have all

been deferred because of very rapidly increasing costs and lack of

market. However, we haven't really ceased our negotiations with the

Japanese. We've merely deferred them. But I think I should also inform

the House that the northeast coal deal — as the member for Vancouver

Centre full well knows — was not based on any steel mill. I don't want

to accuse a member in his absence. But if he espoused that as a policy

of his government, the policy was not a proper policy, because that

wasn't the case at all. If the steel mill was constructed in British

Columbia, it would use about two million tons of coking coal a year.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked some very

intelligent questions in the Legislature yesterday. I will try and give

him a few answers to some of his questions.

The list of studies that were carried on during the past summer include: a study of the coal resource; a

[ Page 935 ]

transportation subcommittee which studied mapping,

rail routes, highway routes, access, et cetera; an environment and land

use subcommittee; a manpower subcommittee; a townsite and community

development subcommittee; and a general analysis of the overall

project. Some of the results of those studies have allowed us to put an

overall initial determination on the project to negotiate with Ottawa

and to continue further studies.

The member knows that these studies were initiated last year, but

the member also stated that northeast coal is not economic at a price

of $55 per ton. I just want to say that you can't determine the price

of a house until you decide where you are going to build it, who's

going to build it and all the other costs. So there are definitely

ongoing studies.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It depends on your determination of the

subsidy, and I'm not going to get into that. Let's take the St.

Lawrence Seaway, for instance, which was a joint venture between the

United States and Canada. You have to look back on it and say: "Was it

good for Canada?" We haven't paid back any of the initial costs yet; as

a matter of fact, we can hardly keep up the interest payment. But you

have to look at it from the point of view of the complete

socio-economic benefits it has given to Canada. Maybe you would suggest

a royal commission to study that at that day.

You have to look at the Pine Point Railway, which was built and passed over. I've gone through this many times.

You have to look at the extension, for instance, of the railway

north of Quesnel into the Peace River country. When that railway was

built, the government of the day didn't have a cut-and-dried deal that

there were going to be so many pulp mills built and so many sawmills

built. Certainly we will do all the studies that are necessary to

determine the viability of this project. But the member well knows that

it's not always possible to tie up some of the unforeseen things. We

will endeavour, before the project goes ahead, to put a handle on

everything we possibly can. We're not rushing into it headlong.

With regard to the railroad, I assure you that I and this department

will certainly demand that every railroad is studied in sufficient

detail to determine that we are choosing the proper route, and also to

determine the costs, as near as possible, of that railroad before it

is.... Because that's very important. I don't want the wrong railroad

put in there. So I just want to say that that's ongoing.

With regard to coal supply and coal demand, there are several

studies that have been done. This department has commissioned studies.

We have ongoing studies with the federal government. You can rest

assured of that.

MR. MACDONALD: What happens to them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You ask what I did in Japan. I have a

commitment from the Japanese that they will move to increase their

supply of coal from British Columbia. You may say that's not a positive

deal per ton, but we have to rely, also, on the.... We're not signing

the agreements — the individual coal companies will be out there

selling the coal.

But I'm going to quote from a report which I'm not prepared to table because...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, these studies are ongoing, and we

will be using them. But with regard to supply, combined exports from

these countries — and I'm talking about Poland, the USA, the USSR and

China — are forecast to rise.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister can't quote from a document without tabling it.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's get it tabled. That is a valid point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is valid.

MR. MACDONALD: It's valid. He has to table it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I can quote from documents without tabling them. You know full well, Mr. Member, that I can.

All right, I'll quote from a piece of paper then.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister did quote from the.... Would he table the report?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the minister is going to quote from another document at his point in time.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, he's quoted from this one.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Information never hurt anybody!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon.

[ Page 936 ]

minister has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we went through this in the House before. As I say, we're not trying to keep information.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But certainly the information will be

tabled and the public of British Columbia will know what's going on

before decisions are made.

Mr. Chairman, I quoted from a document the other day. There are

certainly sufficient quantities of coking coal in the world to supply

all of the demand. But the point is, as I stated in this House before,

that other countries are interested in fulfilling this demand. We are

competing, and we must compete at world prices or we'll leave the coal

in the ground.

The member mentioned other methods of making steel. Certainly there

are other methods of making steel, but by the turn of the century they

are expected and anticipated to supply about 6 to 9 per cent of the

world's supply of steel. We must remember that if we do not move to get

into the market and supply it while there is a demand, we may never

have the opportunity to fulfil that demand.

With regard to the Coal Task Force, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), volume 1 supplied all the

facts and figures; volume 2 was some recommendations with regard to

policy.

MR. MACDONALD: Let's see them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The whole area of policy decision on the

development of coal is under study at the present time, and we will be

making certain recommendations to the Legislature in due course.

MR. GIBSON: I was most impressed with the remarks of the hon.

Premier when he intervened in this debate. I was impressed because

obviously something has touched a nerve. He asked for an intelligent

discussion.

MR. LOEWEN: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: To the hon. member for Burnaby who says "Hear,

hear" and whose remarks I shall be looking forward to with great

interest: one of the essentials of intelligent discussion is

information, and I hope that member who speaks next will bring us all

the information he has.

The Premier had the gall to ask for intelligent discussion on the

estimates of this minister without giving us the information we need to

fully do that. If he really believes in intelligent discussion in this

chamber, will he direct the release of the Coal Task Force report and

the BCR revenue survey on the Dease Lake line, both the initial one and

the ones that must be being done now? There shouldn't be one more penny

spent on that line until that extra hundred million that's still to

come is justified. Will he direct the release of some of these other

reports that the minister has just read off to us now? He went so fast

I don't know if I got them all down, but he named documents called "The

Study of the Coal Resource," a rail and access study by the

transportation subcommittee, an environment study by the Environment

and Land Use Committee, a study by the manpower committee, a study by

the townsite committee, a general analysis of the overall project — I

suppose by the general analysis committee — and then an overall initial

determination which has been put to Ottawa by the overall initial

determination committee. He mentions a supply study. He mentions a

marketing study.

Now we're starting to hear a little bit about where that $3 million

has gone, Mr. Chairman. These studies are all available. The Premier

has asked for intelligent discussion. You had some pretty intelligent

discussion based on the amount of information that's available, I'll

tell you.

The Premier talks about hypothetical figures being thrown around.

I'd like him to stand up and stake his seat on that. I'd like him to

stand up and stake his seat on the basis that coal at present prices

with whatever BTU adjustment he wants to make or whatever coking

quality adjustment he wants to make for the Peace River is economic on

an unsubsidized basis right now. If he's not prepared to do that, which

would at least show guts, or else to make the figures public, well

then, I don't think we have to pay very much attention to his remarks.

The Premier made an eloquent call for the port of Prince Rupert, and

I'm all in favour of that. I'm all in favour of the development of that

port for an alternate route to the Pacific for the benefit of British

Columbia and Canada. But that's begging the question, Mr. Chairman.

That doesn't tell us why we should not have before us in this

Legislature the facts on northeast coal and the development of it in

this province.

What this government is doing day by day is making commitments. It's

making commitments with Ottawa; it's making commitments with Japan and

other foreign customers; it's making commitments with companies that

are making expenditures on that basis. The hon. first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was perfectly right: BP is not a babe in

the woods; they don't throw $30 million around for a northeast coal

prospect without having a pretty shrewd idea of just how this

government is going to move. Other people have these numbers and

commitments are being made, and we can't get these

[ Page 937 ]

figures. So I say we must have touched a nerve somewhere. I think it's about time that we had the facts.

MR. MACDONALD: He's like a squirrel burying nuts.

MR. GIBSON: Who's burying who?

Mr. Chairman, the minister came up with an interesting argument

which I am prepared to buy, if he will back it up with facts, and that

is that the coking coal market in this world is developing, somebody is

going to fill the capacity increment, and that we would prefer that it

should be British Columbia. You can justify on a temporarily, let us

say, high-cost basis achieving that pre-emptive position, if you can

show that over the long run it will be for the good of the province.

I think an argument can be made that that's exactly what British

Columbia did in respect to pulp capacity in the late 1960s. I think

that case could properly be made there. If it's to be made for coal —

and it's a very tricky case to make — then let's have the

figures. You just can't gamble with literally billions of dollars

of the public's money in any correct way without telling them exactly

what that gamble is.

You know, to get back to just a nice simple little number that all

of us can understand a little bit easier than billions, though it's

still tough enough, there's the British Columbia Railway and the $100

million yet to be spent on the Dease Lake extension. Mr. Chairman, this

government and this minister talk about deficit financing. Here's a

load of debt — an additional load of debt — of $100 million that, over

the next couple of years, is going to be placed on the people of the

province of British Columbia. They're going ahead with the building of

that line without having the report of the royal commission, and

without knowing whether the revenue that's going to be generated will

justify even the extra $100 million that's to be spent now, let alone

the total capital cost of $264 million, I think the minister told us

about the other day. That $100 million hasn't been spent yet, and I

say, Mr. Chairman, there should not be one more penny spent on that

Dease Lake extension until the minister justifies to us the revenue

forecasts and the traffic that will support that extra money to be

spent.

He doesn't have to abandon the project, but maybe that $100 million

for the next couple of years can be used in more effective ways to

create jobs in British Columbia, like giving the stimulus for another

pulp mill; like giving the initial infrastructure for working with that

northeast coal; like, for example, a bit of research into undersea

mining and ocean engineering which is one of the great potentials for

the future of this province. If we are really to expand our mining

technology as we sit here on the shores of the Pacific Ocean with all

of the necessary companies, large and small, that know how to do that

work, from the accumulation of capital to the engineering experience,

as we sit near the large accumulations of undersea nodules, as we look

at the business of mining, which is what British Columbians are good

at, put a few million into that, maybe, instead of putting it into the

Dease Lake extension for the next couple of years. That is, unless

you've got those revenue forecasts that justify it, and I don't believe

they're there.

There's as much debt going to be incurred in the continuation of the

Dease Lake extension as that government complained — half as much as

they complained about — that they received from the former government

when they took over, and they sure haven't made half as much complaint

about it. They just seem to be accepting that crushing load of debt

that good Social Crediters normally say they don't approve of.

So, Mr. Chairman, my remarks continue basically the same. I wish the

minister well. I wish his projects well, but I also say, as a member of

this House speaking for some of the people who are paying some of the

taxes for all these things, I do not trust any government to do the

right thing unless they make everything public. I'm saying that those

studies are available. The minister read out the titles of those

studies in this House, and unless he can make a case that their release

would in some way prejudice the public good of British Columbia, then I

say they must be released. I have thought very carefully about whether

that might happen with any of these particular reports. I do not

believe that, on balance, it would be a problem.

Somehow it seems that private companies can make their feasibility

studies public without suffering harm. It seems that other levels of

government can make their feasibility studies public without suffering

harm. Why can't the province of British Columbia? I'll tell you why:

because they want to manage the news. They want to play it close to the

vest. They want to hold the information there so that they can make all

the decisions without nasty little questions from the members of the

opposition saying: "What about this?" and "What about that?" Then

finally the day comes along when the decision is made and we're

committed with the federal government, we're committed with Japan,

we're committed with all of the companies, and the big announcement's

made. Then you start to ask questions, and they say: "Well, too late,

fellas. It's all signed."

MR. KING: You wouldn't join that group, would you, Gordon? You wouldn't join that gang, would you?

[ Page 938 ]

MR. GIBSON: You aren't suggesting it, are you?

MR. KING: No.

MR. GIBSON: I most certainly wouldn't.

MR. KING: That's good. It's on the public record now.

MS. BROWN: Garde's having enough problems.

MR. COCKE: All you have to do is look at poor old Garde.

MR. GIBSON: So, Mr. Chairman, there it is. We've made some

progress with the minister — at least we've got the titles of some of

the studies now. How about a bit of the print?

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, when looking at Hansard , will be able to see that he does wish the Minister of Economic Development well, and he wishes the government well.

MR. GIBSON: I wish everybody well. I wish you well, too.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you.

I also would like to make reference to his suggestion that this

government should release news, or just rumours of news, as soon as

those things appear. I can't help but think back to the time in the

past years when the opposition was the leadership. I can't help but

think of the chamber of commerce meeting I attended at the Royal Towers

in New Westminster.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who was then Minister of

Health, at that time made many grand announcements at that chamber of

commerce meeting.

I couldn't help but say to my associate who was with me at that

particular meeting — and it was a most untimely time of year — that

there must be an election coming. I said that I was sure there would be

an announcement within the next two or three days. Sure enough, we had

our announcement.

I can't help but be humoured today that in the attack on this very

worthy minister the opposition was heard to say in the hallway: "We

will get him." There were terms like: "We will get him. We will crucify

him." There were terms even more harsh than that that I would hate to

repeat.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on! Put up or shut up!

MR. LOEWEN: These were statements made by the opposition in the hallway.

MR. COCKE: Name names!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOEWEN: This is simplistic gutter politics.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOEWEN: They smear and innuendo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on! Tell the truth!

MR. LOEWEN: There are several reasons why I became involved

in politics in British Columbia. Among others, I came to see whether

these gutter politics by the opposition and some of their catchy

slogans were, in fact, true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could you relate your remarks to the vote, please? You are out of order.

MR. LOEWEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, certainly.

I am referring to slogans that they use, such as: "Roads or people?"

"Fenders or hospitals?" "Taxes or people?" I can't help but think, Mr.

Chairman, of their statements about...not like the sweater says in

Hawaii: "Do it in the ground!" They say: Keep it in the ground!" The

opposition says: "Keep it in the ground!" I can't help but think it's

better to mine it, develop it, produce it and put it in the bank, where

at least we can generate the interest. As some of us well know, we

might call that interest — perpetual care — perpetual care for the

people of British Columbia and the development of British Columbia,

where the people can live at least off the interest instead of keeping

it in the ground where it would cost much more to develop as years go

by.

I am also particularly humoured by the objections of the opposition

to this particular minister. I am particularly humoured by that member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). He will be surprised again, or at

least he will feign surprise, that after the announcement of the

development that is going ahead in New Westminster where that member

threatened to scuttlebutt that development....

MR. COCKE: Why doesn't he say so?

MR. LOEWEN: That member threatened to scuttlebutt that development in New Westminster.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You must relate your remarks to vote 79 and the minister.

[ Page 939 ]

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, once again I am very proud of this government.

MR. KING: Why?

MR. LOEWEN: I am very proud of this minister, who has

initiated one of the greatest community developments ever undertaken in

Canada or in our beautiful city of New Westminster. This is an example

of great unselfishness, an example of great creativity, of imagination

and of true intelligent leadership. He is combining the resources of

the community, the resources of business, the resources of the

residential community, the resources of the professional community, the

resources of private corporations and the resources of government in

the interest of the total community, with no cost at all to the

taxpayer.

I see the Ministry of Economic Development and the British Columbia

Development Corporation not just as a promotion of programmes of

idealists politicians and bureaucrats. I see the Department o; Economic

Development as a department providing the leadership and the decisions

that are combining the ingredients of success. I see the Department of

Economic Development and BCDC as the catalysts which are so necessary

for investment confidence in this province of British Columbia. They

are catalysts not only for investment confidence, but for the

confidence of working people to, in fact, come to British Columbia and

work and produce in our beautiful province.

The answer to development in British Columbia is not just the grand

and large developments which are promoted by governments; the answer is

not in the small-business loans, as some academics and bureaucrats

suggest from time to time. The reason why different development

corporations have been set up across the country.... The answer, apart

from the cost of production, which has been canvassed in this House by

this time, and the cost of labour....

But we in British Columbia must learn to try harder. We must have

the determination to make things happen. I think of two communities

that I have lived in, Mr. Chairman, members of this House and the hon.

minister. One community had nothing to fall back on, except that they

had a community of hard-working people. The other community that I

lived in was a one-industry town; it was also a tourist town. This is

very similar to the economic base of British Columbia.

When I was in the chamber in both communities we lobbied for one

particular industry, as just one example. That particular company's

head office was in Minneapolis. The difference why one community got

that industry into the community and one community did not was not in

the cost of labour. It was only one thing, and that was the

determination of the individuals of that community to make it happen

and bring that particular industry in.

Just one example among many other things of why that one

hard-working, determined community got that industry in was that every

time one of the business people went to Minneapolis, which they did

frequently, they would knock on the door of the chief executive of that

corporation and they'd say: "Come, come, we want you." Then they'd back

that up with different incentives. That industry today is employing

many jobs in that small rural community of Manitoba.

Determination! We have to get back to true determination in our

province of British Columbia if we're going to really see things

happening.

I'd also like to make some specific suggestions to the Minister of

Economic Development and the government of this province. I agree,

first of all, with the member for Vancouver South when last week he

commended BCDC in their plan of assembling and developing industrial

properties. But I also suggest, secondly, that BCDC could be encouraged

not only in a town-centre concept in New Westminster but they could do

this in each community or many different communities that need this

kind of support where the problems are greater than private enterprise

can resolve. BCDC could be the catalyst to make these things happen.

I also believe that BCDC would be the organization that could help

define to our government what the real problems are in development in

this province. I'm thinking particularly in respect to delays in lead

time in construction projects.

I'd also once again like to recommend to the Department of Economic

Development that the minister encourage this formation of this private

corporation with a broad base of directors that could be the front for

people from different companies in British Columbia who would like to

trade internationally but just do not have the wherewithal

independently to trade, buy or sell with countries internationally. I'm

thinking particularly of the countries in the Pacific Rim. I'm thinking

particularly of China. Again, this corporation could be formulated very

much after the United States-China International Trade Corporation.

One more time I'd like to encourage the principle of merchant

banking. We need much more than just our conservative British banking

system. We need to encourage the principle of merchant banking. I'd

like to read this paragraph from a Winnipeg newspaper. We're now

discussing something altogether different.

"The proposal is for a merchant bank which will fill an

investment gap between the huge investors such as Canadian Development Corporation

and Montreal's Power Corp. and the chartered banks which purely lend money.

[ Page 940 ]

"The real gap in Canada today is down at the middle

level. There's a shortage of high-risk capital in areas where there is

a need for greater competition to break open a stale or controlled

market."

I'd also once more like to mention Bill 44 in Ontario, a bill which

passed second reading December 16, 1976. It's a bill that truly

combines winners. It combines the determination and experience of

management and the determination of capital, and combines them together

with ideas and enthusiasm to truly make things happen. Not naive

idealism, but people and organizations who are able to make it happen

together with youthful enthusiasm. We don't need more plans; we don't

need more programmes. We need leadership — determination...

MR. COCKE: What's it doing on the order paper?

MR. LOEWEN: ...unselfish determination and leadership that will make things happen.

MS. BROWN: You're not getting it from him.

MR. LOEWEN: We need the kind of leadership that looks for the

best solutions, is prepared to pursue solutions and make these things

happen. The problem with the opposition in the past has been that

they've been so philosophical and so idealistic that the word

"pragmatic" was not in their vocabulary and certainly not in their

personalities. Too often these same naive, idealistic people, instead

of appreciating the efforts of those people who have made this province

what it is, have abused and offended the very organizations, the people

and the companies that have made it what it is today.

I believe that if we get back to the old-fashioned principle where

the sweat, the blood and the tears of individuals who make things

happen are again respected, we can again be the province that we all

want this beautiful province to be. Now I believe that we have the type

of leadership I'm talking about, with the kind of determination, the

character, the people who can make the hard decisions that are

necessary and can back them up and not just make promises. We have that

kind of minister in our minister today.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we should deal with the

minister, but I can't help being a little hurt by the remarks of the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen), who says that we said in the

hall that we're out to get this minister. Now that's ridiculous, eh?

MR. LOEWEN: That's right.

MR. MACDONALD: That we would get him! This minister carries

his own precipice. We don't have to go out and say things like that in

the hall. No, no. He's a self-made disaster. He's doing fine.

MR. KING: He's a disaster looking for a place to happen.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to conclude about this Coal Task

Force report. You've given us volume one, which is the technical facts,

eh? Then the Coal Task Force, led by Prof. W.M. Armstrong and with

Sandy Peel, published "recommendations." That was the word you used.

And the Legislature is not allowed to debate them or to know what they

are, and the people of British Columbia are not allowed to see volume

two. It's like reading half of Gone With The Wind and not knowing that Atlanta was on fire. Did I get that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Atlanta. It is arrogance, though, Mr.

Chairman. It's arrogance in government of the worst kind when

recommendations are published by a task force, that was to go out and

bring these recommendations back to the people, and they're suppressed

by the minister. Everybody in this House knows that someone like Dr.

Norman Keevil, Jr., who's the vice-president of Teck Corp., knows more

about those recommendations than we do. Sure he does. You know these

people speculating in resource rights in the province know more about

it than we do. That's not right, Mr. Minister. If you want to run a

proper department and confide in people and allow people to debate the

issues, you ought to release this material. To release half of it is

not good enough. It's circumscribed the intent of that Coal Task Force

when it was set up, which was to bring back things that the people of

B.C. could discuss in relation to this most important resource. You're

suppressing it and I say that's arrogance in government, Mr. Minister.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): First of all, if you'll

indulge me, I'd like to introduce a couple of citizens from

Nelson-Creston. It's the first opportunity I think I've had this year.

Mr. and Mrs. Jim Payette are in the gallery and I'd like the members

here to join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has shown a great deal of arrogance. He

was defended by his Premier. His Premier said that he worked long

hours, that he worked seven days a week and that he worked 18 hours a

day. Well, I wonder what those members of cabinet thought they were

running for, Mr. Chairman, if it wasn't to work long, hard hours for

the people of British Columbia. You know I'm just getting a little bit

sick of hearing them coming up and complaining

[ Page 941 ]

and saying how tough it is and how much their time is imposed upon. That's what it is to be a cabinet minister.

But perhaps that Minister of Economic Development has developed this

accident-prone tendency of his because he's overworked, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps that minister needs a good rest — a good vacation — and perhaps

the best time that that vacation could take place is while certain

matters arising from his office are under investigation. I think it

would be well advised. Perhaps it's because that minister's been

overworked that he let things slip by him. He was so loose mouthed that

not only did people in his office here in Victoria apparently get some

information, but people in his constituency association also did.

Now I could only imagine people imagining if my constituency

secretary Marie Decaire in Nelson were to get such information, not of

a constituency matter, but of a departmental matter. How so much of

this could have happened does boggle the imagination.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Rossland-Trail indicated quite ably

that there is a general dissatisfaction with the Kootenay report from

the Ministry of Economic Development. I would like to bring to the

minister's attention that on January 10, 1977, Mayor Salvador presented

a copy of the Kootenay report from the ministry and stated his

dissatisfaction with the contents at the council meeting. It was then

resolved that the Kootenay report for the Ministry of Economic

Development be received for information and that a copy be obtained for

each alderman.

But I must say that there has been great disappointment with that

report. We don't need such along report over such a great length of

time to tell us that we do have some difficulties in the Kootenay area.

What we would have liked would have been to see some positive

recommendations and time frames set up for some positive action.

The other day I referred to the Atco plant in Penticton and to the

fact that the Atco plant in Penticton was actually tooling up to build

14-foot-wide trailers long before the change took place by

order-in-council through the Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications (Mr. Davis). I'll quote from the news release of April

26, 1976, from the Department of Economic Development. It was announced:

"Atco Industries will establish an 89,000-square-foot mobile-modular-home

plant in Penticton, British Columbia."

Good — very good stuff.

"The announcement was made today by Don Phillips, Minister

of Economic Development and chairman of the British Columbia Development Corporation

and by Mr. D.A. Bullock, vice-president, mobile home operations, of the division

of Atco.

"Atco has entered into a 15-year lease-purchase agreement with

the British Columbia Development Corporation for the $2.5-million plant."

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister an old question and a

new question. First of all, did the minister give an assurance to Atco

prior to this announcement that they would be bringing in changes in

legislation in order to enable the building of 14- or 14-1/2-foot-wide

mobile homes and their transport on the highways of British Columbia?

No. 2: is the minister willing to table this agreement with the members of this House?

A lot has been said today — and I think that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) has made some points which certainly bear answering about

the northeast coal agreement. The government has said they have an

economic strategy. But it's a strategy, Mr. Chairman, they seem to be

unwilling to share with members of this House, refusing to table

documents and breaking the rules, I might say, of this House by quoting

from documents and then pulling them back and then pulling out a slip

of paper. It is a rule of this House that when quoting from documents,

they should be tabled.

We hear from them that they have an economic strategy. They seem to

be embarrassed to share it with members of this House. Perhaps it's

full of holes. We do see some unfolding of this and we see the news

manipulation referred to by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. We see this announcement in The Daily Colonist

following the Premier's trip back cast. It says: "Bennett Sees Federal

Pact Signed by April 1." Then it refers to a five-year DREE agreement,

an ARDA agreement and to some highways building.

Surrounding this northeast coal development study, there seems to be

an awful lot of farming out of work. Not all of this work is being done

by department staff, nor is it being done by corporation staff. I would

like to know just how many consulting jobs he has farmed out

surrounding the northeast coal development studies, and at what cost.

Clearly they are doing all of these things; they're in the process. But

there isn't really much happening in terms of jobs being created in the

area. The needs and the unemployment situation are very serious.

According to information from the Department of Manpower, in 1976 — I believe the January figures are given for 1976 — 6

per cent were unemployed. For this year in the northeast area, in

regions 98 and 99, Canada Manpower gets it up to 11.9 per cent, clearly

double what it was a year ago — double because of a lack of action,

because of a lot of intemperate actions being taken.

There are a lot of studies taking place and some

[ Page 942 ]

people are being hired, consultants are being

hired; there is lots of work for consultants. But these consultants

mostly come from places like Vancouver, and maybe Calgary and Edmonton.

I would like to know what information the minister intends to get

through his contract with, I think, Suzanne Veit and Associates — a

study of employment of women in mining — and whether this is to play a

great role in terms of the employment strategy in the northeast coal

agreement.

You know, it appears that what we have are bureaucrats stumbling

over bureaucrats. There are so many of them, Mr. Chairman, that even up

there in the great wide open spaces of the Peace River they need

traffic cops to keep these bureaucrats from stumbling over each other.

That, of course, is maybe another sign of employment, but it has

resulted in a doubling of unemployment in that minister's area.

They are collecting things called "progress reviews." There is one

man assigned to collect progress reviews from all the other

bureaucrats. There is still another who will work to update the timing

chart. I guess they had high expectations of getting things underway

very soon. Now they're having to set back those times, keep the timing

chart up to date and keep moving back the deadlines, so there is

another bureaucrat just going around doing that.

Another one is examining and amending, whenever necessary, the

project activity chart. They have a project activity chart. I think

people want to know what the purpose of the project activity chart is.

What is the timing chart? What are the progress reviews? Are we getting

ahead or are we falling further behind? Are we going to see another

doubling of unemployment in the minister's area? Is it going to go up

by another 6 per cent, maybe, in the next year, and another 6 per cent,

so that it's up to over 20 per cent?

Mr. Chairman, the people of this province need action now. I know of

a small fiberglass plant in my riding that needs a little bit of

capitalization. It could be employing people tomorrow, but they are not

interested. They're not interested in real free enterprise. No, they

want to just help these big foreign mining corporations who seem to

have so much money but that's all. I'm not criticizing them for wanting

to get things going in terms of coal mining, but they shouldn't forget

that the small employers are also important. That's where the real free

enterprise is.

Mr. Chairman, it appears they have piled subcommittee on

subcommittee. They have a manpower subcommittee; they have a townsite

community subcommittee; they have a liaison committee with DREE; they

have an inter-departmental committee for pilot training. What are these

committees doing? Are they getting anywhere? Are they getting further

behind? Are they getting ahead? What is the man in charge of update

timing doing? What is the person assigned to the project activity

chart...? What do his charts look like? Where are we getting.

They have an estimate of new jobs in the northwest with respect to

coal development. Mr. Chairman, going back to 1976, it was estimated

that there would be 85 jobs at Utah Mines for 1977. There are supposed

to be 475 employed in Denison, 300 at Sukunka and then 85 at Utah. They

have projections for 1978-79 and, I guess, 1980. What are these

projections? What can we hold out for, Mr. Chairman?

You know, the minister is supposedly so overworked that perhaps he

should get himself a little bit organized. Perhaps he should cut out

some of the overlapping bureaucracy, cut out all this PR mumbo-jumbo

and get on with the real job. You know, opportunities are passing this

minister by like a freight train going by with a bunch of grain cars on

the Prairies. They are just going by one after one. Of course, grain

cars are, I guess, perhaps one good place to start.

You know, Ottawa turned down a request from Railwest Manufacturing

Company's rolling-stock subsidiary in Squamish for an extension of the

deadline for the submission of bids to build 2,000 federal government

grain cars, according to a recent announcement. The Railwest general

manager, Mr. Bingham, met that week with representatives of the

Departments of Transport and Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa and

was unsuccessful in getting the deadline set beyond January 17.

Railwest had only received an invitation to bid on January 5.

Mr. Chairman, what action did that minister take? What outcry came

and what leadership came from the Premier who says that he has such a

wonderful relationship and such wonderful rapport with the officials in

Ottawa? Is the minister trying to cultivate another Bricklin? Is he out

to destabilize the Railwest plant? Is this part of a scheme, as it may

be part of other deals with the CNR, in negotiations that are reported

to be taking place with the CNR? How could such a travesty be

perpetrated on the people of British Columbia and the minister and the

Premier remain so supine to these arrogant, off-hand actions of the

federal government and their Crown corporations? Mr. Chairman, this is

a do-nothing minister, and if it takes him seven days a week, 18 hours

a day to do nothing, that's all he's done for the people of British

Columbia — nothing!

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Settle down over there.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, the Premier, he got up and he spoke so

eloquently in defence of that minister. That minister also got up and

demanded an apology

[ Page 943 ]

when it was exposed to this House that a member of

the B.C. Development Corporation was doing work and pursuing his duties

on behalf of Finning Tractor, the president of which is Mr. Morris

Young, a director of the B.C. Development Corporation. The minister

shakes his head. He doesn't seem to understand, but it's apparent that

the B.C. Development Corporation is another corporation where they

don't appear to have an ethics committee, where they don't appear to

have a conflict-of-interest subcommittee of the board of directors in

order to discuss and to clear such matters before such embarrassments

occur. These things, Mr. Chairman, should be discussed, and if there

was an ethics committee, and if the ethics committee discussed this

because of Mr. Young's involvement with the two corporations, and if it

was found and ruled upon to be proper, then it would be proper. But

there is no ethics committee. It appears there is no

conflict-of-interest committee. It is an unethical board of directors

as it stands, and that should be cleaned up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're casting aspersions upon

public servants, that would require a substantive motion. I am sure you

are aware of that.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I'm not talking about a public servant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unethical board of directors?

MR. NICOLSON: I am not talking about anyone who is serving as

a public servant, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that

if the Crown corporations don't have a conflict-of-interest committee

or an ethics committee at the board of directors level in order to

discuss some of these things...because when you bring in people of

expertise from the business community you're bringing in people who

might sit on several other boards of directors. This is what is done

with banks and insurance companies that have people on the same board

of directors. I am saying that this is a policy that should be adopted.

It should particularly be adopted by any Crown corporation on which

that minister sits. That is all I am saying.

Well, the minister, of course, got up and he demanded an apology for

remarks made — for bringing up this deficiency, this weakness in the

system, which has been adopted by the present board of directors of the

B.C. Development Corporation. He demanded an apology. That minister has

not as yet, to my knowledge, apologized for remarks that he made as a

member of the opposition concerning four members of the Dunhill

Development Corporation who, he said, were guilty of insider trading.

He said he had a prima facie case and cast aspersions on these people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell us about Casa Loma.

MR. NICOLSON: Now it has become a matter of record that Mr.

Bannerman and CKNW paid $1,000 to each of those offended parties and

they gave an unreserved apology, but there has been no unreserved

apology from that minister. How can that minister sit there and expect

the members of the opposition to apologize? What gall! What contempt!

What arrogance! What hypocrisy for a minister of that calibre to make

such demands!

Mr. Chairman, there's a great deal that still concerns the members,

I would venture to say, of all three opposition parties — questions

unanswered, documents untabled. What is the economic strategy of the

minister for this province? What is the economic strategy for the

northwest coal agreement? Are we on schedule? Are there going to be 475

jobs at Denison this year in that area? Is Sukunka going to provide 300

jobs this year? Are there going to be 85 jobs from Utah? Are you going

to see the unemployment in your area maybe drop back to 6 per cent from

12 per cent, Mr. Minister?

It would appear that when we were looking into this ourselves prior

to the election, we were expecting some 2,000 jobs to be created. But

with the paper chase that's going on with this minister, I think maybe

we were being a little bit too optimistic. It is going to be some time,

Mr. Chairman, before this thing will ever get off the ground — if ever.

We have some very serious charges made by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano

which haven't been refuted. Just rhetoric, just talk. "Trust us. Don't

attack my little minister. He's the walking sieve of information. Don't

attack him. Such a nice little guy. 11

We're not out to get him; we're just out to get some of the facts.

We want to get some of the facts about this government's plans for the

economy of British Columbia. There are 112,000 persons unemployed. And

they can get up and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) can come

up with the trumped-up statistics of the Department of Manpower and

seasonally adjusted rates, and compare and compare. But the fact is

there's never been 112,000 persons unemployed as there are today. In

the Nelson area there are 2,200 persons unemployed out of a labour

force of 12,000. That's 18.3 per cent, and those are just the people

out of a 12,000-person labour force. And the minister sits there and

smiles, and he has nothing to say. He won't table their strategy. But

what is the strategy to get B.C. moving again? Did the minister give a

commitment to Atco in terms of allowing and bringing in legislation?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to sit down very soon, but I am sure that the minister will be

[ Page 944 ]

rising to answer some of these questions. Just get

up and give a little bit of an apology. I know it'll hurt, but show the

big man that you are. Apologize for what you said a few years ago — not

to me, not to any of the members on this side of the House, but to

those public servants that you slandered.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate that member's concern about

the economy of British Columbia. With regard to the Kootenay report,

those reports were commissioned by the previous Minister of Economic

Development, paid for partly by the province and partly by the federal

government. They are really meant to be an inventory of opportunities.

If the people in your riding are unhappy with the report — they are

meant to be discussion papers — certainly we would be most happy to sit

down with them and to discuss. If they have suggestions as to projects

or other natural resources in the area that are left out, if they have

suggestions as to how we can help them implement or bring about some of

the opportunities in the area and bring them into reality, we'll be

most happy to do that.

With regard to the 14-foot-wide trailers, on September 21 the

Department of Transport and Communications made an announcement. I

believe that was six months in advance prior to the rules and

regulations being published. They invited submissions from the

industry, from trailer owners and from any other interested parties

with regard to the movement of 14-foot-wide trailers on our highways. I

think that's been a good move, and I think the member will agree it's

been a good move. We are giving British Columbians the opportunity to

avail themselves of living in 14-foot-wide trailers the same as they

have in other provinces of Canada. That member for Nelson-Creston, who

was a Minister of Housing, realizes that 14-foot-wide trailers are

providing good accommodation for many, many households in British

Columbia. I think it's a good move to give British Columbians access to

the 14-foot-wide trailers.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to welcome the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) back into the House to offer

some of his comments. We all know that he'll be the last one to let you

down. (Laughter.)

I'm rather amazed that that member should be absent for the greatest

part of this debate over the last several days and then come into the

House and lecture to the rest of us as to what is wrong with this

debate and what is wrong with the attempts by the opposition to get to

the facts and the figures of our economic situation.

I was also interested, Mr. Chairman, to see today for the first time

who the new minister of defence is in this government. The last

government also had a minister of defence, and it seems that that is a

position which develops almost by accident rather than design. We heard

the Premier standing up this afternoon to assume the role of minister

of defence as well as Premier. He was trying to protect the Minister of

Economic Development who, by this time, I think, is beginning to show

some insight as to the reason we're all here. The reason we're all here

is to discuss his responsibilities and to ask questions about them in

the hope that we'll get answers. It's only in the last day and a half

that it appears that the Minister of Economic Development has got the

message as to why we're all here.

I think the Premier's defensive rush was a sort of hit-and-run

affair, really, Mr. Chairman. He made a spirited defence of his

minister and then took off like a scared rabbit. It would seem to me

that that is hardly the kind of example we would expect from either the

Premier or any other minister who professes to be very concerned about

what's happening in the province and says that this debate should be on

a high level.

He made some remarks as to how he had read Hansard on returning from

Ottawa, and that it was fortunate he wasn't here last week. He

says...when most of what passes for debate from the opposition was

spouted forth in this House. But judging from reading Hansard ,

I missed nothing more than the usual series of insults, half-truths and

nothing constructive from the opposition. He seems to share some of the

attitudes of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who feels that he can be

missing from the chamber for three or four days, albeit on a very

important mission to Ottawa, and then come back and suggest that the

opposition isn't trying to present some useful, reasonable and

constructive ideas, not only so that the opposition can be better

informed but so that the people in the province can understand what the

economic future is.

In his comments, the Premier blamed the former government in the

period from 1972 to 1975 for ongoing unemployment. Frankly, Mr.

Chairman, I think that's rather a grandiose accusation when the figures

and facts show that unemployment was not created in 1972. Furthermore,

this same Premier is on record many times as talking about the close

relationship between unemployment and inflation. Ever since he became

Premier he has quite rightly talked about the terrible problem of

inflation which puts up costs and creates unemployment if allowed to go

unchecked. This is why this government, in my view, quite correctly

signed an agreement with Ottawa to support anti-inflation measures. For

the Premier to come in this afternoon and give us his smart-alec

remarks — "Oh, dear me, it was the NDP who created all the unemployment

between 1972 and 1975" — is just a bit much.

I'm not just quoting the opinion of opposition members in this House but anyone who reads the

[ Page 945 ]

comments by some of our economists. It makes it

very plain that the modern challenge to all governments is to try and

walk this tightrope between inflation and unemployment. If you inject

money into the economy to create jobs or lower interest rates, or take

some of the other measures which governments — particularly federal

governments — are being asked to take, there is always this danger

that, sure, you can create jobs, but that all you do is perhaps start

off another round of inflation. So for the Premier to come in this

afternoon and give us this simplistic appraisal of how this government

is solving all the economic problems of B.C. when, in point of fact,

unemployment hasn't changed one whit, except to get a little worse

since this government took office....

AN HON. MEMBER: Way worse!

MR. WALLACE: Then for the Premier to go on and tell us about

the Napoleon in the government, the one man who is the master who will

design the economic strategy for British Columbia.... Who does he

really think he's trying to fool?

We've heard from some observers that this minister is the power

behind the throne. I would think he's a long way behind the throne at

the present time, based on his performance. I would suggest that if his

judgment in matters of economic development are similar to his judgment

regarding the people he chooses for high office, his own attitude to

ethics, and what creates or does not create a conflict of interest,

then I would have to conclude that it is no small wonder that the

economy of British Columbia right now is standing still.

The Premier also referred to the need for federal-provincial

cooperation. That is undisputed. As I mentioned earlier, this

government or any other government should always be given the utmost

support in building the strongest kind of understanding between British

Columbia and the federal government. But on the other hand, one has to

ask the question.... We're agreed that we should have improved rail

links in British Columbia. We're agreed that there should be port

development to make it possible to export raw materials from the

Prairies and from this province and earn dollars outside of Canada.

We're all agreed on that. But all I can determine is that we're always

being told that that's going to happen somewhere in the future. That's

really pretty cold comfort to the 112,000 people who are unemployed.

I noticed The Globe and Mail on February 9 had a very

sobering headline which said: "40 Per Cent of Record Jobless Total Are

Family Heads." There again, I think that figure relates to the fact I

mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman — families are leaving British

Columbia. There was an outflow of several hundred families in 1976.

So I just think it's reasonable for the opposition to make the point

that we're hearing of all kinds of plans and all kinds of studies and

all kinds of promises as to what will happen if we just have patience.

The people in the province who are unemployed would like to see

something a little closer at hand and a little more reassuring than

these ongoing promises of what this government will ultimately do to

create jobs.

We've heard enough in this debate in several days that we're certain

the province is being studied and restudied. It reminds me so much of

all the studies we've had in the greater Victoria area to do with

hospital facilities for the last 9 or 10 years. We're virtually studied

to death.

Perhaps more important even than that point is the fact that this

minister has clearly demonstrated that it is a policy of this

government to worship secrecy. There's an obvious aim by this minister

and by the Premier to provide little or none of the basic information

on which the opposition could evaluate economic development in the

province or the absence of it. If there was ever any need to

demonstrate that we should have greater freedom of information, it

would certainly be in this debate when, for the first several days, the

minister just refused to give any kind of answer to questions.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

On a more specific note, Mr. Chairman, and to ask the minister one

or two further questions: the annual report covering the activity of

the ministry up until March 31, 1976, has become available. I would

just like to ask, how is it that the annual report outlines the

activities of four or five very important branches of the minister's

ministry — such as business and industrial development, research and

analysis branch, policy planning branch, women's economic rights branch

— but in the actual book of estimates there is no breakdown on the

different financial activities of these particular branches? In fact,

the minister's estimates are summed up in only five separate votes. Two

of these votes relate to building-occupancy charges, and another one to

computer and consulting charges.

The sum total information in votes in our estimates book, Mr.

Chairman, consists simply of "the minister's office," "general

administration" and "grants." Yet the annual report of the ministry

spells out the kind of activity that's going on in a variety of areas.

I just wonder how we can be expected, once we leave the minister's

vote, to debate intelligently the other activities in many of the

branches within the ministry. Again, it would suggest that the

estimates have been drawn up in such a way as to make it difficult for

us, as opposition members, to get the

[ Page 946 ]

information we want.

For example, under the trade and industry division in the annual

report, I found a very interesting statement to the effect that, in

general terms, for every $35,000 in additional sales we create one new

job. Now I thought that one of the points that had been made repeatedly

was that depending on which kind of industry we're involved in and

which kind of product and what the overhead costs are and 100 other

things, from these factors flowed the number of jobs that might or

might not be created. So maybe the minister can tell me later on how

you reach this figure that $35,000 worth of new sales creates a new job.

There's also a small-business assistance division. I wonder if the

minister could bring us up to date with the latest information about

Oakland Industries. We know that more than one member of the House,

particularly the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), has already

raised this issue. I would think that it would be timely; the minister

has had another couple of days to pursue that issue further. We would

like to know whether Oakland Industries will survive through assistance

from B.C. Development Corporation.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) raised the issue of a

handicapped man who was creating employment in Lake Cowichan. I have no

wish to intrude into matters in her riding, but that particular

gentleman has been corresponding with me off and on for some time. He

has a small plant which manufactures cedar work baskets and garden

equipment.

To read the recital of the various people that he's seen at

different times within the ministry is really quite distressing. I

presume that each and every member of the minister's staff who has

dealt with Mr. Christian has done so