1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1579 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Administration of justice.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1579

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Administration of justice. Mr. Leggatt –– 1580

Goldstream River dam. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1581

Stikine-Iskut project. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1581

Radioactive wastes. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1581

Goldstream River dam. Mr. King –– 1581

Administration of justice. Mr. Lauk –– 1581

Housing shortage. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1582

Ministerial statement

Maplewood Poultry.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1582

Mrs. Wallace –– 1582

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1583

Mr. Barnes –– 1586

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1591

Mr. Lockstead –– 1594

Mr. Brummet –– 1598

Appendix –– 1602

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the House to welcome today a former

research assistant with the CCF and later the New Democratic Party, Mr.

John Wood.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, there are members of the British

Columbia Library Trustees Association in the buildings today visiting

Victoria, including Mr. Blair, Mr. Parker and Mrs. Stocks. I'd like to

have the House welcome them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the galleries

today the chairman of the Powell River Regional Board, Mr. Len Emmonds,

and the secretary-treasurer for the same board, Mr. Glen Calvert. I ask

the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have,

from the Columbia River constituency, Mr. Tracy Riches of Invermere and

Mr. Greg McAllister of Radium Hot Springs. I'd like to ask members to

welcome them.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a

group of students from the Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in

Courtenay, sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Betty Maddison and Delbert Doll. I might add that Delbert

Doll was the Social Credit candidate in the constituency of Comox in

the last election. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to extend our

welcome to the class and the teachers, particularly Delbert Doll — and

to say we all wish he was here.

MRS. WALLACE: In the precincts today there are some 80 young

people, 40 of whom are from Mt. Prevost Junior Secondary School in the

Cowichan Valley and 40 of whom are their guests from Cape Breton, Nova

Scotia. Some of them will be in the gallery later today, together with

the Mt. Prevost teacher, Mr. Barry Birch. I would like the House to

welcome them.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is

Mr. Rick Jensen from Cranbrook. Rick is the recent recipient of a Year

of the Child Award and is president of the Big Brothers organization of

British Columbia. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming one of my constituents, Victoria C. Biggen, who used to work

with a former member of this House, Lyle Telford.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and, I think, all members of this

House, I would like to welcome members of the Municipal Finance Authority, one

or two of whom are in the gallery now; others will be in the gallery through

the course of the afternoon and evening. This is the occasion of their semi-annual

meeting. It is of interest that this marks the tenth anniversary of the establishment

by this Legislature of that very unique and, I might add, very successful local

government organization which cares for the financing of capital requirements

around the province. I think it would be appropriate to pay tribute to members

of the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Today the minister paid tribute to the very special

place that the members of this House have, and the special place that we share

on behalf of the people of British Columbia. May I say that we are able to carry

out our responsibilities a little more easily — in fact, a lot more easy,

Mr. Speaker — because of the great people who work with us in the public

service. One of the most outstanding people in our public service has been my

executive secretary, about whom I can say to you, Mr. Speaker…. I would

not have been able to have lived through those first four years from 1975 until

this year had it not been for her outstanding service. I would like to say to

those of the House that Mrs. Shandley has had to be away for a short time because

of illness, but I am happy to tell you that we can welcome her back. She is

in the gallery today — Mrs. Phillis Shandley, with her friend Mrs. Agnes

Bentley.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like you and all the House

to join with me today to welcome a special group from the Esquimalt

senior high school. This group is a special seminar — social studies

group number 11, commonly called the GCC. This is a special gifted,

creative and committed group that are doing a pilot project program in

the Greater Victoria school district. This is being held in the

Esquimalt Senior Secondary School as a special project, and I ask

everyone to welcome them here.

MR. LAUK: From the core of the greatest city in Canada, Mr.

Speaker, two visitors today in the gallery are Ms. Janet Miller and Mr.

Jim Cruikshank. Could we welcome them, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting us today from the

floodplain is a former newsman, a now radio personality, Mr. Ron

Gadsby. Please make him welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As you know, I don't get the opportunity

very often to introduce constituents of mine from the great South Peace

River riding, because they're all so busy producing the energy

requirements of the province. But today in the gallery are two citizens

of our province who have spent many years in the great Peace River

country and are now constituents of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis). I would like the House to join with me in making welcome

Dr. and Mrs. Robert Esau.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my colleague for Vancouver Centre yesterday, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, following what the hon. member said in terms of studying the statement of the

[ Page 1580 ]

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the

documents referred to therein, I wish to make the following statement

on behalf of the official opposition.

My statement is not in reference to the integrity of the Deputy

Attorney-General, Mr. Richard Vogel, but relates to grave

considerations as to the administration of justice in this province

under the Attorney-General — in other words, the integrity of the

system, not the individuals, and whether even-handed justice in

accordance with law has prevailed in the instances cited in the

Attorney-General's statement.

As to case number one referred to by the Attorney General, the case

of Mr. Michael Moran, the serious question is: why did the Crown drop

the charge of refusing to take the breathalyser test which had been

laid against the accused? In light of evidence revealed in the

transcript of the hearing that did proceed, the statement of the RCMP

officers, individual witnesses and the physical evidence of alcohol, an

independent inquiry is clearly required as to whether the dropping of

this charge involved special considerations not available to others who

refuse to take the breathalyser test in like circumstances.

As to case number two, Mr. Speaker, the case of Andrew Rigg, the

question which should be the subject of independent judicial inquiry

is: did this accused receive consideration not generally available to

persons facing this charge, by reason of his case receiving attention

in the Attorney General's ministry in Victoria — first with respect to

the charge being stayed and secondly with respect to a Crown appeal?

The second question is whether a routine case of this kind should

not be appealed against the direct advice of both regional Crown

counsel and the associate deputy minister for criminal law.

The third case referred to raises questions not of failure to

subpoena a witness, as this became a moot question when a guilty plea

was later tendered, but rather whether the Attorney-General directly,

or through his agent, attempted to prevent the calling of a witness in

a case where charges had been laid. If this is so, and so found by

inquiry, it would constitute an obstruction of justice.

The questions here raised have not really been addressed, let alone

clarified, in the statement made yesterday by the Attorney-General. The

Attorney-General, rather than, as reported, deciding to send copies of

interviews he conducted to the federal Communications minister Francis

Fox, who has licensing power over the Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation, should table those copies with this House, and refrain

from steps which seem to be intimidatory with respect to a news agency,

and allow any personal questions of reputation to be decided in the

ordinary way in the courts of law. Clearly these grave matters cannot

be decided in the Ministry of the Attorney-General itself, but must be

the subject of an independent judicial inquiry — even though the

Premier is wagging his head back and forth — which will deal with the

matters here raised, most of which would not be relevant in a private

lawsuit.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Attorney-General.

Yesterday the Attorney-General was quoted as saying that he would send

copies of interviews he conducted with those connected with the three

cases that were discussed yesterday to the federal Communications

minister and to the CRTC. Can the minister advise, first of all, if he

was being accurately quoted? If he was, could he also advise whether

the Minister of Communications of Canada or the CRTC will have

information available to them that is not available to other members of

this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General may wish to answer the question. In question period it is irregular to ask if news reports are factual.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was simply going to say that I thought

the member was in his place yesterday when I made my statement. If he

wasn't, I would be happy to send him a copy of the Blues.

MR. LEGGATT: Perhaps the minister could clarify it, because I

wasn't clear on his answer. The minister indicated in his statement

that the statement he gave to the House would be forwarded to the

Minister of Communications and to the CRTC. Could the minister now

clarify whether anything else will be forwarded to those two bodies?

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

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister now clarify for members of

the House whether any of the interviews and statements taken by either

himself or his assistant Mr. John Hall were taken under oath, in terms

of the report that he gave to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: None were, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister clarify for the House, in the

matter of the Rigg case — the case in which his predecessor described

the deputy minister as having exercised an "error of judgment" — now

that he's had........

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Could you repeat that?

MR. LEGGATT: I'll repeat it if the minister didn't hear me.

The minister's predecessor described the matter of the Rigg case: the

Deputy Attorney-General had exercised an "error of judgment" in that

particular case; or a "mistake of judgment," I think were the words, to

be more accurate to the minister's predecessor. Now that the

Attorney-General has had access to further inquiries in the matter,

will he still confirm that it was an error of judgment on the part of

the Deputy Attorney-General to have intervened in the Rigg case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the words "error in judgment"

in Mr. Donald's letter, as I understand them — I have discussed it with

him — are his conclusion. I assume the same with respect to the

comments made by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

MR. LEGGATT: In respect of the Mickey Moran case, the clear

indication from the report of the Attorney-General yesterday was that

there was no attempt by the deputy minister to intervene or interfere

in that particular case. However, the direction not to continue with an

appeal came from the

[ Page 1581 ]

associate deputy minister. I wonder if the minister

could clarify for the House whether any inquiry was dealt with, or any

statements were taken, as regard conversations between the associate

deputy minister, Mr. McDiarmid, and the deputy minister, Mr. Vogel, in

respect to that particular case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and there were no conversations.

GOLDSTREAM RIVER DAM

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have some answers to questions put to me

by members earlier in the session. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) asked if the minister was aware whether the fish and

wildlife branch of his ministry had requested of the water controller

that public hearings be conducted into water licence applications for

Noranda Mines on the Goldstream. The answer is that the controller of

water rights advises that a public hearing on Noranda Mines' Goldstream

applications was not requested by any of the objectors, including the

fish and wildlife branch. The current status of the application is that

Noranda Mines has been notified by the controller that he has decided a

water licence on Goldstream River will be issued to Noranda.

STIKINE-ISKUT PROJECT

The second question came from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell),

who asked about Hydro's objects with regard to the Stikine and the

Iskut River: "Has an application been filed by B.C. Hydro for

hydropower projects on either of these two sources, and have ministry

staff participated with Hydro in the study of fish migration or

mountain goat habitat problems on the possible sites of these sources?"

The answer is that B.C. Hydro has not filed an application for a water

licence on the Iskut or the Stikine Rivers; and yes, Hydro consultants

have done most of the work but the Ministry of Environment has

consulted the fish and wildlife branch throughout to help design the

research project and evaluate the Hydro consultants' work.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES

The third question came from the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall): "In view of the doubts expressed by Dr. David Bates that the

commission of which he was head would be unable to fulfil its promise

to the Surrey residents that it would study radioactive wastes on the

property owned by CRF Holdings in Surrey, can the Minister of

Environment advise what other action the government is prepared to take

on the problem of radioactive wastes in Surrey?" The answer is that the

province has already initiated action to further clarify the intentions

of the federal government regarding the disposal of radioactive

material, and to encourage the early resolution of the problem. The

province has no intention of letting the matter lie idle.

GOLDSTREAM RIVER DAM

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Environment. Can the minister advise whether he directly received any

requests from interveners or interested parties requesting that a

public hearing be held incident to the application by Noranda for

construction of a hydro project on the Goldstream River?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I did not personally receive any request, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LAUK: To the Attorney-General. In the recent review and

collation of materials, did John Hall take statements from Bruce

Donald, Brian Weddell or Dick Vogel, or all three?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Hall hasn't informed me from whom he took statements.

MR. LAUK: In any of the interviews conducted by either the

Attorney-General or Mr. Hall, is there a complete transcript of those

statements or a statement given by Mr. Vogel or any other witnesses?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Was John McAlpine interviewed by the Attorney-General, his staff or Mr. Hall?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't interview Mr. McAlpine. He may have been interviewed by Mr. Hall.

MR. LAUK: Were there any other police interviewed by Mr.

Hall, the Attorney-General or his staff, other than those mentioned in

his report to the House of yesterday?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: None of which I am aware, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Of those police interviewed, mentioned in the

Attorney-General's report to the House.... Is there a transcript of

those statements?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not of the interview I had with the police

officers, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that there is a recording of the

interview conducted by Mr. Hall.

MR. LAUK: Yesterday, in the report to the House, the

Attorney-General stated, in some of the questions that were involved,

that an appeal is launched, usually by the Crown from a conviction or

by the defence on an acquittal, on the grounds that there is a legal

issue requiring further clarification. I think the Attorney-General

said "fundamental legal issue." In practice, there are three criteria

for launching an appeal from acquittal or conviction: (1) new direction

taken in the course of the law, (2) a fundamental legal issue requiring

clarification, and (3) a conviction or acquittal being based on no

evidence, that is to say a perverse verdict, as stated in the Criminal

Code.

Is it now the policy of the Attorney-General's department, after his

statement yesterday, to give direction to all prosecutors and defence

counsel that an appeal will not lie on the grounds of a perverse

verdict?

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, has the Attorney-

[ Page 1582 ]

General, now that he has notified the House that

there are transcripts of the interviews, now made a decision to send

copies of those transcripts of the interviews with related material and

his full statement to the CRTC regulatory body? Do you intend to send

them? Have you made arrangements to send transcripts to them?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Which is your question?

MR. BARRETT: Has the minister now made a decision to send copies of transcripts of interviews to the CRTC?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I haven't made that decision, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, in his statement to the House

yesterday the Attorney-General indicated that in the King-Farris case

Mr. Vogel was giving a lawyer's opinion in regard to any comments

surrounding the calling or non-calling of John Farris as a witness in

that case. During the inquiry, or from the report that he received from

his assistant, was he able to determine why a lawyers opinion was

necessary in that particular case? Why was it necessary for his office

to be called in to render a lawyer's opinion around the calling of a

witness in a matter to be dealt with normally by Crown counsel?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, he wasn't giving a lawyer's opinion to Crown counsel; that arose during a discussion with two police officers.

HOUSING SHORTAGE

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing. Lack of housing, in particular rental

accommodation in the lower mainland and many other small communities in

the province, has reached crisis proportions to the extent that

provincial and federal government agencies are not able to assist even

on an emergency basis. Has the government decided to establish an

emergency housing program to meet the expected crisis this spring?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have.

MR. GABELMANN: Another question, Mr. Speaker. B.C. Is the

only province in Canada that does not have a Crown housing corporation,

and B.C. has the worst housing shortage in North America. Has the

minister decided to re-establish the Crown housing corporation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we already have a Crown housing corporation in the province.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister

whether or not he intends the housing corporation, which he claims

exists and is active in this province, to further its activities or to

do something.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do what?

MR. GABELMANN: Another question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this

shareable money available through CMHC under the National Housing Act

and in view of the very positive results that the program has shown in

seniors' housing, has the government decided to take advantage of

further cost-sharing with the federal government and develop low-income

and co-op housing in B.C. on a broader scale, in the way that it has

been done for seniors?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do have some

difficulties with the national government with funding the level of

need we have for senior citizens' housing in British Columbia. In March

1979 we signed the global funding agreement with the national

government wherein we clearly, defined our roles. We will be the

administrative and the operating arm for senior citizens' housing in

the province.

When it comes to cooperative housing, it's a matter that is clearly

defined as a role of the national government. In 1979 five projects

were established on cooperative housing in British Columbia with 341

units. I guess the role that will be played and how significant it will

be as far as cooperative housing is concerned in 1980 will be

determined by the kind of dollars that are allocated by the national

government as the initiator and the administrator in the operation of

cooperative housing in this province.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial

statement. You will recall the other day during question period that I

advised the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that the matter

of Cargill Grain's proposed purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processing

Ltd. was under review by this government.

For the benefit of the members of the House I would to like to

advise them in regard to this statement that Cargill purchased Panco

Poultry from the government over a year ago, and at that time, of

course, it was to move production units and a processing plant out of

government ownership, because we didn't want to be in the chicken

business. However, the support of that purchase was given by the

poultry industry in this province, and with that purchase, Panco

Poultry, owned by Cargill, at present processes 23 percent of the

broiler production and 60 percent of the turkey production in this

province. The acquisition of Maplewood Poultry would result in 43

percent of the broilers and 80 percent of turkeys being processed

through that one company.

As I stated to the member the other day, I was concerned about the

percent which would be held by one processor, and the producers have

also expressed their concerns both to me and to Ottawa. Also, Pacific

Poultry Producers Co-op have expressed interest in purchasing Maplewood

Poultry and have so advised the Foreign Investment Review Agency in

Ottawa. Pacific Poultry Producers Pan Ready Ltd. Is a B.C. company and

a Canadian company. As a result, in completing our review, although

Cargill has operated Panco Poultry Ltd. In a positive manner, it is our

position that the acquisition of Maplewood Poultry Ltd. by Cargill

Grain would not be in the best interests of the poultry industry in

this province. Therefore we have communicated to Ottawa our objection

to the sale of Maplewood Poultry to Cargill Grain.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to express my appreciation to the

minister for taking this stand. I am certainly pleased that he has

finally come around to this conclusion. It

[ Page 1583 ]

is something that has been pressured for by the

producers and by myself for some length of time, and I just hope that

his application to FIRA, or his protest to FIRA, reaches them in time

before they have already made their decision.

Orders of the Day

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is highly

irregular for members on either side of the House to be interrupting

the proceedings of the House while Orders of the Day are being

declared. I trust that I don't have to remind the hon. members about

that.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ….

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: I don't believe you indicated to the hon. member the amount of time remaining to her.

MR. SPEAKER: She didn't require me to respond, but I will find it out

for her so that the hon. member is satisfied.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to thank the hon. second member for

Vancouver Centre for his concern over the time. I appreciate that. I know you

are going to stay to hear every word.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue along the line of the budget debate,

as we sometimes stray a bit from that subject. I would like to address

myself to the budget today. I support this budget because of the great

things it's going to do for our fellow British Columbians.

I think there was some reference during the first day, the first few

hours that the budget was out, in the press to it being somewhat lucky,

or that somehow it came by way of luck or just being in the right place

at the right time. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is

in the right place at the right time, and I can say this: the people of

British Columbia have put us here because they want to be in the right

place at the right time with the right government. It is because of the

economic initiatives brought in by our Minister of Finance. I want to

say to the Minister of Finance.... He was preceeded by an outstanding

Minister of Finance, and I am really pleased to see that he is

following in the same footsteps of good fiscal management which will

bring social good to the people of British Columbia.

You know, as Minister of Human Resources, it would seem that I would

refer mostly in my address to the budget to those things which come

under my ministry's responsibilities, and I certainly plan to get back

to that as I started last night. But first of all I would like to say

what this budget means to us in the city of Vancouver. May I just

depart a minute from my ministry's responsibilities to say that some of

the initiatives are going to change the face of Vancouver dramatically,

and the economic opportunities for the people of Vancouver. I am

particularly pleased to say that I see the support for the Pacific Rim

trade and convention centre as one of the great initiatives of this

government, as well as the support for the trade and convention centre

for Victoria, which was also announced in this budget, and moneys

provided for it.

In terms of our whole Pacific Rim trade potential, half the world's

population is served by this great province of British Columbia. In

addition to the Pacific Rim trade and convention centre, there's no

question that British Columbia Place and the great initiative of

Transpo will be a fantastic boon to our city and to our province.

Also contained in the budget are the highlights which give

tremendous initiative to the forest industry. When I think about the

jobs that will be created by that alone, and how my ministry can use

some of those jobs for the benefit of the people on income assistance,

I am very, very pleased to see the dollars that are going into the

reforestation program and the Forests ministry.

On the Pacific trade and convention centre alone we anticipate about

700 construction jobs. British Columbia Place and the trade and

convention centre in Victoria — just think how many jobs they will

create.

Then when I look at the other economic initiatives that have been

put forward, and I consider for instance the concentration on energy

self-sufficiency, I don't know of any other province in this country

that has paid tribute to the fact that if we don't get busy and if we

don't start to plan our energy initiatives, as this province has

historically done through hydro development.... By the way, those are

the same hydro developments and the same two-river policy the

socialists across the way said weren't needed at all. We sure know

today how much those decisions were needed. Thank goodness the Social

Credit government made those decisions.

I can't help but say that our Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), combined with our new Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), through

this budget have before us a tremendous plan for economic development

which will see so much in our province in terms of hope, initiative and

planning for the future such as we have never seen before.

We have heard the doom and gloom from the other side of the House

for some two to three weeks, and that's all we ever hear from them. We

never hear from the socialist side of the House about the opportunities

for the young people such as those who are sitting in the gallery

today, for the young people mentioned in the budget speech for whom

retraining and educational and vocational opportunities are going to be

made available. We never hear of the positive things. I despair for the

young people of today who day after day have to sit and listen to the

television set telling them about the gloom and doom in this province,

and who have to read in the newspapers about the gloom and doom

perpetrated by the socialist side of this House. They are the

privileged young people of this generation who will lead and who will

find a future in this province that is outstanding, the best

opportunity that a young person could ever have.

I'd like to see our province, our people, our business community,

the people in the churches and even the people in the socialist camp

start to talk about the positive things in this country and in this

province, because we have more positive things going for us than

negative things.

There is a psychology, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to draw your attention to it:if you talk bad times and if you poor-

[ Page 1584 ]

mouth everything that comes down the pike, you will

have poor times and you will create poor times. Let me say this to you:

free enterprisers and individual enterprisers know that the

opportunities in this province are incomparable to any other area of

this country. We can talk about the great province of Alberta — and I

love the Alberta people. We know they have tremendous potential in

their reserves of oil and so on; we appreciate what they have. We are

combined with Alberta as being the only growth provinces in this nation

in the 1980s. That's our place; that's our time. When we are told that

Alberta has potential as well as ourselves, let me tell you, Mr.

Speaker, British Columbia's potential is many times more than Alberta's

could ever be.

What are we looking at? Again, let me refer to the two ministers who

have such tremendous potential and responsibility, but who also have

such tremendous foresight for the energy potential of this province.

I'm referring to the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications and our hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources and all those other things. I think that the resources they

are looking after, the resources which they are tapping for our

potential, are just out of this or any other world. Let me quote some

of the figures. It is estimated that at current consumption — just as

spendthrift as we are now, without any concern for the electric light

being spent, the amount of water pouring down through the rivers and

out to the sea, all of the gas and oil and so on.... This current

consumption, I think we all will suggest, is a wasteful type of

consumption. Thank goodness the budget addresses itself to conservation

measures as well. We have enough gas reserves in this province to last

60 years. We have enough oil reserves for six years — not very good. We

have enough coal reserves — with coal conversion opportunities that

have never been known by the scientific field as well and as profoundly

as they are today — to last for 12,000 years.

Let's tell that to the young people of the province, and say that

they are here at the right place at the right time. When they hear all

the doom and gloom from the socialist side of the House and when they

hear of the precariousness of the world political situation — the word

from the OPEC nations, the word from Afghanistan, the concern over the

Persian Gulf — let us tell them that here, in this province, they have

hope. Let us tell them that in this province we have vision. And let us

tell them that in this province they have opportunity, and so do all of

those who are older and younger.

It's a great budget. It's a budget of opportunity, Mr. Speaker. And

because it is a budget of opportunity, do you know what it does for me

as Minister of Human Resources? It says to me: "The opportunities for

you as a minister looking after social services are the best that any

Minister of Human Resources has ever had." I know that, and because of

that I am appreciative of being here at this time.

I want to say this to you. I was in a money-making portfolio for a

little while. My colleague from Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who

now has the very first total Ministry of Tourism not attached to

another ministry, is in a money-making ministry. She has a terrific

opportunity, because that ministry provides more jobs for people in

Canada and British Columbia than any other area of endeavour. It

provides more positions, more employment. But I am in a spending

portfolio now, and I have the opportunity to see how important it was

that the economy of this province is kept really vibrant and healthy,

because I see the demands made on our Ministry of Human Resources.

Let me just say this. We have been told time and time again by

members opposite — the left — that we have been an uncaring government.

We have been told over and over that we don't care for people. They

have sold that line so well. They know very well by figures and by

example that it isn't true. But they have sold it so well to the people

of British Columbia. They go around this province and tell those

outrageous stories about how we don't care for people. Mr. Speaker, let

me tell you how we compare, in terms of caring for people.

Do you know that in the health services budget alone the expenditure

per patient in this province in 1975 was $1,499; in 1980 the

expenditure will be $3,370 per patient. That is over double, Mr.

Speaker, in that short time since the NDP had the opportunity and the

responsibility for providing health services. We've been told there

have been cutbacks in local hospital budgets, yet the expenditure per

patient in 1975 was $915 when the NDP were in power; in 1980 it was

$1,790, again almost double. Some cutback!

Mr. Speaker, do you know that in 1975 the total social services

budget looked after 202,196 people? Because we have been able to get

some people off income assistance and into a meaningful place, in 1980

that has been reduced to 187,943 people. The expenditure of each of

those cases, in 1975, was $1,901,

whereas in 1980 the Social Credit

administration will spend $3,567 per case. Then, in education, Mr.

Speaker, the expenditure per student in 1975 was $944. Compare that to

1980, which is $1,883 per student expenditure on education. Some

cutback. Some treatment of people. It's the best treatment that the

people of this province have ever had.

I am so pleased to say that my particular ministry has had a 17.4

percent increase, and I want to say that we are going to spend it for

services to people in the best way that you have ever seen. I'm not

going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how our ministry plans to assist the

people who are today on income assistance, and I'd just like to say

this to my fellow members of this House: you will all go home to a very

comfortable home this evening, you will all have a car to drive, most

of those in the gallery will have good food to eat, and most people in

British Columbia will appreciate a very good standard of living. There

are some in our province who will not have that standard of living. As

I have said to my members in my Ministry of Human Resources — those who

serve on the front line, the 5,000 social workers, family support

workers and child-care workers throughout our province — it is our

responsibility to take all of those people who are on income assistance

and who are not handicapped and are not there because of some physical

or mental disability, and say to them: "We are going to turn around

your lives and give you the same opportunities that we enjoy."

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to announce a great and dramatic plan

today, but I'm going to tell you, as we begin this decade of the

eighties, that this Ministry of Human Resources is going to present a

plan to the people of British Columbia. It's not going to be a whole

new dramatic program that's going to be a one-shot program — a few

months' pilot project. Instead it's going to be a total and complete

concentration on those people who should have an opportunity, who have

somehow lost their confidence, and who have somehow lost their way.

It's going to be the best program, which is going to knit together the

Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Human

Resources to give an exciting program — an exciting and complete plan,

if you

[ Page 1585 ]

like, a life plan of opportunity — to the people of our province. We will commit ourselves to doing that.

I think that the members opposite would want to know, especially

those who have been particularly.... I'm glad to see that the member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is in his seat, because yesterday he

was very critical of the fact that we had medals and certificates for

the Year of the Child. He was very critical of the fact that we had

what he, I think, called a "tinsel campaign" for the Year of the Child,

and he wanted to see that overcome. Well, let me say this. It was

probably the only speech that you could give, Mr. Member. I didn't say

it was a good speech, but it was probably the only speech, because the

speeches that have come from the other side have been extremely lacking

in substance, and have been not at all in the form of good debate in

this House, as this House has known it in years past.

Let me just say that in terms of the community awareness which I

have hoped to bring to the people of this province, I want the people

of this province to understand that there are people in this province

who volunteer their help and give of themselves way above the line of

duty. And I just want those people who think that the Year of the Child

was an exercise in public relations to look at some of the people who

received awards and recognition for the first time in their lives. I

wonder if the members of the opposition want to argue with a lady who

wrote to me after receiving a presentation as follows:

"We would like to thank you for the lovely award you

presented to us of the Year of the Child and Family. It's just lovely.

By this we know some people are behind us, and that helps. Fostering

for almost 15 years now has been truly rewarding, with most of the

children looked after...."

I can't read her writing, Mr. Speaker, but it looks like "that J.W.

looked after and cared for. We thank you." It is signed by a couple

from Cranbrook.

I have letter after letter from people, and I had expression after

expression given to me verbally by people who had cared for

multi-handicapped children, who had given their lives to help someone

else's child — not their own, but someone who for some reason couldn't

be cared for in his natural parents' home. They had given their lives

up to help them. Some were blind, some were deaf or otherwise

physically handicapped, others were completely non-handicapped. If I

could bring to you just one expression from any one of those people it

would be this: "We wanted to do it and we chose to do it but, you know,

it's really nice to be thanked for it." I think that's human nature.

And let me say to the members opposite who are so critical of that kind

of recognition, I won't apologize for that kind of recognition any time.

I want to say to you that I have been particularly concerned about

the statements that have come.... I see that the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is not in the House, but I'm sure that he'll

read the Blues, because last night I said that I would refer to some

statements that he made. I see that the Human Resources critic for the

NDP is not in the House, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I

hope they will read the Blues, because I would like to make statements

on statements that they made when they addressed the budget. Let me say

this: every member takes full responsibility for his or her actions in

this House. If some of the scurrilous statements that have been made on

the other side of the House have not been corrected, it is not a

reflection on this side of the House, but is on the head, and is the

responsibility, of the member who has made them — and such statements

they were by those two members.

Let me just tell you I don't believe that the people of this

province, the poor people — and there are poor people, those who are on

social assistance, those who are handicapped for some reason or

another, those who have gone to jail, those who are now in court

because they are charged with the incredible situation of murdering a

child.... All of that, Mr. Speaker, was put on the head of the Minister

of Human Resources — the reason why so many women are in jail. Why, the

member for North Island placed the responsibility on me for the fact

that there was a baby who had died in North Island.

They both know full well the confidentiality of the kind of work

that we do in the Ministry of Human Resources. If either one of those

members thought for a moment that there was something lacking in the

Ministry of Human Resources in terms of accountability.... If any

member today has the least suspicion that there is something wrong

somewhere in this province, that a child does not have full protection,

that a mother does not have full protection, that a family does not

have full protection, he need only come to me. You do not have to blame

me for someone who has gone to jail and has given the reason that he

didn't have enough to eat — you don't have to throw that back on the

Minister of Human Resources. I know that the people of British Columbia

don't believe that. I know that the members who have said it don't

believe that. If that were so, there would never have been a jail

sentence all the time the NDP were in power; there would never have

been, for heaven's sake, a charge of murder; there would never have

been anyone who would have gone before a judge and said: "It was

because I didn't have enough to eat that I stole that money."

I can't get into the specifics, although the members opposite did;

I'm not going to, because I have taken an oath of confidentiality and I

won't break that. But let me put it on the record today that if you

have a specific case — this is for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and

the member for North Island — come to me and I will tell you why. I

will tell you the background, and my ministry's involvement, because I

trust each member of this House to keep that confidentiality, and I

will share with you as much as I can of that particular case.

Let me quote for the record what someone writing in the Sun day Times

of London, England said — and I think this is particularly useful for

those in this House who will be making statements from time to time

about those in our province who are least able to speak for themselves:

"Lately I have begun to notice a very disturbing

feature make an insidious but considerable penetration into our highly

structured and caring society. Hardly a week goes by now but one reads

in the press of yet another social worker being called to account for

what rapidly seems to be emerging as the indefensible and hitherto

unknown crime of the century, 'failure to avert the course of human

nature.' In the name of progress and enlightenment we seem to be

sheltering and fostering a quite new and hideous idea of social

retribution."

I could go on with this article; it's fairly lengthy. It's by Laurie Nelson who is writing in the Sunday Times of London, England.

Mr. Speaker, our Ministry of Human Resources and our

[ Page 1586 ]

people in the Ministry of Human Resources carry a

tremendous load of responsibility. Let me just give you an idea. Do you

know that we take an average of 240 children into care each and every

month? The total number in care — excluding all of those children who

are in care because they are handicapped, because of illness of parents

or deaths of parents — for neglect and child abuse alone, excluding all

other categories, is 4,740 at this present moment.

Let me say this. Every day, 240 times a month, there is someone in

my ministry called upon to make a judgment as to whether or not a child

should be taken out of its home or whether it should not. I think it's

about time, Mr. Speaker, that we realize that it is because of human

frailty that those children are in that position; it is because of the

course of human nature. It cannot be blamed on that Port Hardy

situation brought out earlier in debate by the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann). It is about time that we paid tribute to the people

who go through tremendous anxiety day after day, wondering if they've

done the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that 4,740 times

they've done the right thing in the past 12 months.

We have a remarkable budget here. It gives me an opportunity in the

next few months to work together with my colleague and the

Attorney-General to bring something to British Columbia to help some

single parents in this province in the enforcement of maintenance

orders. That's going to be done, Mr. Speaker, because it is about time

in this province that those who have deserted their wives and their

children — and sometimes it's the other way around, but that is not the

norm — must not just leave the taxpayer to pick up their

responsibilities. We must have a different system. Let me say that

that's not because of dollars and cents; that's not to save money for

the government, although it probably would. It would put the onus on

those deserting parents who go off and let the people of the province

of British Columbia bring up their families and pay taxes to help

single parents....

Let me say that the greatest cost and the greatest burden is borne

by the children of this province who are in that situation and who are

torn between the fights over a dollar bill that exist between the two

spouses, the mother and the father, when the breakup of the marriage

happens. I hope to bring in a whole new program of enforcement of

maintenance orders which will see relief for both the wife and the

children; they will be taken out of that terrible violent area and that

vindictiveness that goes on, which is the fight between a man and a

woman over whether or not they sent the cheque. I hope that we can

bring that about in this year, and certainly in the first two years of

the decade of the eighties. We are committed to that, Mr. Speaker, and

I do hope we're going to be able to.

May I conclude my remarks — because I see the light is indicating a very

short time — by saying that one of the legacies, and only one, of the Year

of the Child and Family was the attack on child abuse in this province. Never

before in this province has there been a program which has been so well put

together in all areas, in all sections of attack, so well received by the public,

and which has resulted so well in actual saving of lives as has our child-abuse

program in this province. I'm very proud of the Zenith line, Mr. Speaker. I'm

very proud of the staff that has put it together, and I'm very proud of the

training program and the child-abuse manual which has had great circulation

in this province.

It's a great budget. It allows the Ministry of Human Resources and

all the social services in this province to have an extremely great

decade in the eighties, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, that was an incredible performance

by the Hon. Madam Goldfinger of the great constituency of

Vancouver–Little Mountain, where you put your own gold in the ground

and then pan for it. I think that member could do well no matter what

she was doing, because she has the capacity to perform. She should have

gone into acting. Just a little while ago that member was talking about

the secret police. It was when she was in the opposition and the New

Democratic Party was the government, and she did that very well as

well. She was broadcasting all over the province about the NDP's

clandestine meetings with persons or groups unknown and their plans to

overthrow the province.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, could I direct your attention to the

interference that I am receiving from that side of the House? I ask

those members to please extend the same courtesy to this side of the

House that we extend to them when they have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: I would like to suggest that if that member ever

decides to go into football, she would make an excellent companion to

the former Hamilton Tiger-Cat, Mr. Angelo Mosca. As you will recall,

Mr. Mosca did a very good job of eliminating Willie Fleming when he was

out of bounds. She has a tenacity for going for the jugular, so I don't

think it is any surprise that she knows how to stand up in this House

and give the impression that she is a compassionate, concerned

individual, committed to furthering the rights of human justice, and so

forth.

The member was the Provincial Secretary a couple of years ago when a

fellow — a former Yugoslavian — died at the age of 75 and left a fairly

large sum of money to the province. I'm speaking of a man who is well

known and was recently reported in the newspaper. His name is Dan

Matijevich. Mr. Matijevich felt obligated to try and return some of the

benefits he had received in this province back to the people of the

province in a bequest to the province of $141,697.65 — moneys that he

had laboured for for over 50 years as a logger on the coast of British

Columbia.

The moneys were, in part, his life savings and, in part, his

pension, and as a result of him living frugally — eating soup out of

tins and stale bread. He lived in a one-room flat in the downtown east

side of Vancouver. Though this in itself was an unfortunate personal

problem for the man, he was obviously well-motivated and felt that he

would like to extend something to his fellow man in his passing. So he

came to the government and asked them to, on his behalf, use the funds

that he had given in a manner that would be in keeping with his wishes.

I would like to read to the House an order-in-council that was

signed by the Minister of Human Resources, the then Provincial

Secretary. I would like you to judge for yourself whether or not that

money was used in the best interest of the bequest as it had been made

to the government. It is order-incouncil No. 2859:

"Whereas upon his death in 1975, Mr. Dan Matijevich, a logger in this province for over 50

[ Page 1587 ]

years, bequeathed his entire estate to the province in gratitude

for the sincere and happy life which he had enjoyed, expressing the wish that

it might help other British Columbians;

"Whereas the proceeds of the estate, amounting to $141,697.65, have been received into the consolidated revenue fund;

"Whereas the British Columbia Forest Foundation is to

establish a British Columbia Hall of Fame in the proposed Forest Centre

to honour those men and women who have been and are contrived to be

instrumental in making this industry such an important part of our

daily lives; and

"Whereas the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Travel Industry, after consulting with the Minister of Forests, report

that an appropriate use of those funds is an endowment to the British

Columbia Forest Foundation to establish a British Columbia Forest Hall

of Fame in the proposed Forest Centre;

"Whereas this expenditure was not foreseen or provided

for by the Legislature, and is urgently and immediately required for

the public good;

"Whereas the undersigned Minister of Finance reports that there is no legislative authority for this expenditure;

"Whereas the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Travel Industry reports the necessity for this expenditure is urgent, a

special warrant be prepared to be signed by the Lieutenant-Governor for

the issuance from consolidated revenue fund of the sum of $141,697.65

for the above purpose."

It is signed by the Provincial Secretary at the time, Hon. Grace McCarthy.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this to the attention of the House because one

thing you can say about that minister is that she's a good performer

but she certainly knows where the action is. In all fairness, I think

she practises the principle that charity begins at home. Certainly Mr.

Matijevich's request to have the funds used to assist other people was

hardly relevant once he had passed. I have no objection to a B.C.

Forest Hall of Fame. In fact, I believe such an institution would

probably have merit, and I would hope that individuals such as Mr.

Matijevich, Mr. Gordon Gibson Sr. and others would be duly recognized

and given their appropriate places for posterity. However, Mr.

Matijevich was a resident of the downtown east side, one of the most

under-represented, least-considered communities in our province. It's a

bottom-of the-road, under-the-carpet community, one of the places where

politicians feel safe in escaping their responsibilities to citizens

who have, for perhaps no reason of their own, found themselves without

resources, means or opportunities to pull themselves up by the

bootstraps, as is commonly suggested by those people who have been

successful in this competitive society of ours.

I would like to read a request submitted to the hon. Provincial

Secretary of today, Mr. Evan Wolfe. This is on behalf of the Downtown

Eastside Residents Association, an organization that attempts to make

up for the neglect that takes place in that area due to petty politics

on behalf of partisan people who do not recognize the right of all

citizens in this province to access to government, to the due process

of law and the opportunity to live at at least a minimum level of

dignity. This is submitted by Mr. Bruce Eriksen, the president of the

association, requesting these funds be applied in the interest that Mr.

Matijevich intended them:

"In the downtown east side of Vancouver there are

thousands of recluses, elderly people, former miners, loggers,

fishermen, construction workers, etc., who are spending the balance of

their lives shut up in small cockroach- and vermin-infested rooms just

as Dan Matijevich did when he was living here. That was one of the

reasons that our association fought so long and hard to have the

historic Carnegie library renovated and set aside as a community

centre. I see by today's Vancouver Sun that our MLA for

Vancouver Centre, Emery Barnes, has urged you to rescind the

order-in-council that turned Dan's request over to the B.C. Forest

Foundation for a B.C. Forest Hall of Fame, and that you have indicated

that you will listen to another point of view.

"Well, I have another point of view. May I suggest

that as Dan Metichovich was a resident of the downtown east side, and

that he indicated that his bequest be used to help others, the

provincial government should use the $141,697 dollars to complete

renovation of the Carnegie Centre. Carnegie Centre has been open to the

community for only a couple of months, and it is already overcrowded.

Over 1,200 people today use the centre. If the basement were finished

it would help to alleviate space problems on the main floors.

"I am therefore suggesting that you put Dan's bequest

to this use, as it would benefit the greatest number of people. At the

same time you could dedicate this space in this historic building to

Dan Metichovich and include some exhibits for the B.C. Hall of Fame.

Dan and the many loggers who live here would likely appreciate that.

"Yours truly, Bruce Eriksen. "

It is signed on behalf of the 3,200 members of their association and

thousands of loggers, fishermen and miners who live in the area.

Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 1978, the now demoted Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the former

Attorney-General, wrote a letter to Bruce Eriksen in response to a

request for funds to complete the renovation of the Carnegie library.

He suggested in that letter: "I am sure that you are also aware that

this government, through the Provincial Secretary, has made a

commitment to provide a substantial grant toward the development of the

Carnegie library project: $500,000 from the recreational facilities

fund." Well, Mr. Speaker, we're still trying to locate the

order-in-council that made that money available, because it seems to

have gotten lost some place. This is now 1980, and we have yet to

receive it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the year of that letter?

MR. BARNES: That was 1958 — some time ago. I'm sorry, it was

1978. But it may have been that long ago, because we're not going to

hear any more about it, I'm sure. What I'm trying to point out is that

the government has a budget before us that gives the impression it is

concerned about people. The fact is, the budget is a political

instrument used to perpetuate those people who are collected for one

common purpose: to perpetuate themselves, to maintain power, to hang

onto power. Every single one of those people over there came together

in reaction to something, not for

[ Page 1588 ]

something; they were afraid the people were

collectively gathering together to bring in a government that cared

about them, and they decided they were going to lose too much. So we

had Liberals walk across the floor and we had Conservatives walk across

the floor, and independents and everybody else got together and called

themselves the Social Credit Party, which in fact only had nine members

at the time. It's really a story that I don't need to talk about,

because I think they are falling apart on their own.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In introducing the budget, the Minister of Finance said: "It is a

chance to present in tangible form the government's plans for dealing

with pressing social and economic issues.... With a…healthy economy, we

are now able to…build." He says that the budget shows we have the

ability to improve people services while building a surplus. Well, we

know they know how to build surpluses. The question is, are they in

fact helping people? The budget is an attempt to deceive. Quite

candidly, I think it's a cynical budget submitted by a cynical minister

with the support of a cynical government.

Quite frankly, I had hoped to be humorous, because I know what it's

like to try to get through the harangues and hubbub in the House from

each side of the floor. This is a very serious time, a time when the

government should concern itself with the pressing problems of today. A

government should be concerned with real, long-lasting problems instead

of the kinds of insults we get from the Premier. He came in with a $200

million mortgage assistance program, suggesting that we want to

encourage homeownership by all British Columbians. That doesn't deserve

comment. Can you imagine the Premier being that much out to lunch not

to realize the serious problems we have in this province? Does he think

he can bring $200 million in, subsidizing the mortgage payments of a

few people, and deal with the problem created by this government

because of its fundamental philosophy that it has no role in the

marketplace in terms of providing affordable housing for people in the

medium- and low-income ranges? Basically they are opposed to helping

people.

The B.C. Housing Corporation, which the minister sitting in front of

me suggests still exists, has no testicles, Mr. Speaker — if you don't

mind me using that expression; I think it's parliamentary. It has no

base. It was robbed. It was dismantled. They sold all its assets and

all its land, everything that really mattered, and now they have a

skeleton they call the B.C. Housing Corporation. And he has the gall to

sit there and say that they are doing something about the problem. I

say that philosophically they are opposed to doing anything about the

problem. They don't want to tell that to the people, but they want to

have all the skeletons up to impress people that they are doing

something. They're doing nothing.

In speaking about housing, I want to quote some comments made by the

former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who doesn't happen

to be in his place at the moment. This minister is perhaps even more

clever than the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) when

it comes to deception. Yesterday the hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) was reading some of the promises made by the

government. He flashed around a Social Credit ad that was printed in

the lower mainland papers which said Social Credit will not abolish

rent controls. He didn't read the rest of it, but I will read it. It

probably cost them quite a few hundred thousand dollars. On December

11, 1975 — that's three days before the election — they said:

"Social Credit will not" — underlining 'not' —

"abolish rent controls. Any removal of rent controls at this time would

only create a chaotic housing situation. Social Credit is committed to

keeping the present legislation, which limits the extent of rent

increases. This is only part of the answer to the high cost of shelter.

A Social Credit government will encourage and assist in the

construction of more low-cost rental housing so that more people can

live comfortably and decently within their means.

"Putting fear into the minds of British Columbians of

all ages by suggesting that our party will abolish rent controls is

unfair and a sad commentary on the election campaigning of the present

government. On December 11 vote the way you want to. Vote Social

Credit!"

Well, what do I need to say about that? I think the situation speaks

for itself. Just pick up the papers any day and look at the headlines.

We have one of the worst vacancy rates in rental housing in North

America, let alone British British Columbia or Canada.

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the former Minister of Corporate and Consumer

Affairs, now the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who is not in his seat.

Here is a little bit of his poetry, and perhaps the House could help us unravel

it. He says:

"If owning were free, there would be no tenant; if

renting were free, there would be no owners; if owning is a better

bargain, there will be more owners; if renting is a better bargain,

there will be obviously more tenants."

Then he goes on to say:

"But the relationship between owning or renting is not exactly economic; it is partly psychological."

Well, I'll tell you, when you're outside looking

in, it's definitely a psychological problem, and not a very comfortable

one at that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that people should start to think about

what Social Credit is doing, what they're saying, because we're dealing

in actions, not in just their words. That same former Minister of

Corporate and Consumer Affairs, responsible for rental housing and the

Residential Tenancy Act at the time, went on to say:

"…but the headlines in the Victoria Times

about ten days ago that indicated to old-age pensioners and people on

welfare and things of that nature that 'they were going to have rent

controls lifted, they were going to be out in the streets,' have no

basis in any statement made by me or any member of this government. It

has no basis whatsoever."

Can you imagine that? "No basis whatsoever."

You can say all those things if you want, and you can try to pick up

your Brownie points, and so be it — you have to live with this. But I'm

telling you, Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the past, as the

Premier has said and as all members of this government have said: "We

do not intend to decontrol rents, save and except where the vacancy

rate warrants." And the vacancy rate certainly does not warrant it in

the disadvantaged areas that the members opposite have been talking

about. This was August 29, 1977. "The people who have difficulty in

raising enough of their disposable

[ Page 1589 ]

income to make rent, who the first member for

Vancouver East, Mr. Macdonald, talked about, where one-third or

two-thirds of their income go to rent, those people have nothing to

fear from anything that this government proposes. I hope the public

will understand that once and for all."

Well, I think in some cases they're spending a lot more than

one-third and two-thirds of their disposable income for rent, Mr.

Speaker. In fact it's impossible to get a piece of property for your

home or in any other way, no matter how much money you're making

practically, with 15 and 18 percent first mortgages — absolutely

impossible. I would like to ask why this government isn't taking the

initiative to introduce its own banking system. I think we had made an

introduction with the B.C. Savings and Loan — I believe it was called

that or something of that sort — that Mr. Barrett had introduced, and I

believe it could still be proclaimed if this government so felt it

wanted to take on the banks and give the people a real break.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's right, hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). The fact is that if you have a 15 percent mortgage....

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the member

speaking has constantly referred to members who are sitting in this

House by their Christian names. I thought it was the practice, when in

this House, to refer to members by the constituencies which they

represent.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. It was obvious that the hon.

member for Vancouver Centre was quoting from a document. If the hon.

the minister was attentive, he would know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. The second member for Vancouver Centre, having consideration for the points as mentioned.

MR. BARNES: Further on these quotes, Mr. Speaker — and they

should be made for the record, because I think in the days and months

ahead we will be dealing with this government much more strenuously

than just these simple quotes. But the public has to know what they

promised and what they are doing.

In no way therefore does the phasing-out of controls

mean that we are abandoning the tenant to the variables of the

marketplace and to the tender mercies of the landlord. As I said

earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to phase out controls. We are

equally determined that no one be victimized by our so doing, so we'll

be monitoring the controls to assure that this happens.

Well, I don't know what the government is doing, but I know in Vancouver Centre

you've caused an incredible amount of suffering on behalf of people. I want

to give you an example. As a matter of fact, I don't need the notes on this

one, because this is a place at 1485 Davie Street which I attended, where there

are a mixture of people and age groups — senior citizens, singles, and

a few with children. It's one of the few places in that area, incidentally,

that permits children to live in apartments. These people were not only issued

notices of increases considerably in excess of the 7 percent which is allowable

by statute, but all of the landlords are taking advantage of the extra sections

which permitted 12 percent increases, and some others which did not have to

be specified. In some cases we had increases as high as 50 and 75 percent that,

obviously, were going to be appealed by those recipients in due course.

In that 90-day period those people were anxious, frustrated,

uncertain, and suffering needless inconvenience and upset as a result

of a piece of legislation which should never have been drafted in the

manner in which it was. Most of those applications could have been

heard in advance, they could have been reviewed by the Rent Review

Commission, and there could have been a mechanism whereby they could

have been worked over to the point that they would have been more

realistic, and in fact they probably would have been rejected in any

event. Many people moved out of frustration and fear, and they suffered

needlessly.

What has this government done on behalf of the rental situation in

the province? I've yet to find out. I don't think that anything is

going to happen. I think, in fact, the government is going to tell

people that all they've got to do is "wait until we get B.C. Place

constructed, and there will be plenty of jobs and more things will be

happening, and you just hang on there. Hang on and hang on and hang on."

Mr. Speaker, while that project was intended as a political ploy on

behalf of the government to give people the impression that it had an

economic initiative and it was going to stimulate the downtown area,

the fact is that the Premier once again showed himself to be somewhat

of a fumbler. He made some friends, however. I'm sure that they're all

members of Marathon Realty, because that was a better deal than insider

trading — when you're going to start announcing what you're going to do

before you secure the lands and make the deals. Now he's going to tell

us that B.C. Place will be a good deal for the people of British

Columbia, and they don't have anything secured, not to mention the

lands. What about the cost-sharing? What commitments are made? Where

are the funds going to come from?

I can tell you, we'll by paying a heck of a lot of money for that

B.C. Place now that everybody knows it's going up but no deals have

been made. What would you do if you owned land that someone wanted to

put a multi-billion dollar project up on, and you hadn't made any

commitments yet? That's how stupid that whole gang are, and they're all

the business people. Here you're getting suggestions from social

workers and people out there accused of being "do-gooders," but we have

enough insight to know that you don't tell your left hand what you're

going to do. It reminds me of a southpaw leading with his left. That's

the way that Premier behaves, so I don't see how he can make anything

but friends among the rich, and make the poor more destitute.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I'll leave that question and ask the

government what it is doing about the large number of immigrants who

have become new Canadians that we find ourselves hosting in the

province. I'm thinking primarily of commitments the government has made

time the federal government permits something like 100,000 immigrants

to come to the country on an annual basis, but as far as strategy

support services, rehabilitation and settlement programs are concerned,

there are many things that need to be done to ensure that these people

have a chance to take

part in our society on an equal basis with other

Canadians. I suppose I should I rephrase that, because some of the

Canadians would, I think, be taking a step down if they lived by the

standards of some, especially the ones whom I've just described, that

are being totally neglected by the government. However, I would suggest

that in the budget the govern-

[ Page 1590 ]

ment has been negligent in not showing,

philosophically, its recognition that it is not sufficient to fund only

courses and programs are concerned. While there may be a large number

of people settling in this area, there are far greater numbers in the

outlying areas of the province who do not have any facilities

whatsoever. So this isn't just a case of playing politics in the area

where the population seems to be the greatest; it is recognizing a

fundamental responsibility to people who come to this country with the

belief that the opportunities have been rationalized in a responsible

way within the statutory capacity of the government, so that they can

be assured of an opportunity to compete relatively successfully in our

system.

I would just refer you to some recommendations that have been made

to the Ministry of Education by a study committee — it was a discussion

paper of a year or two ago — and I would hope that debate of the budget

the government would indicate that they are well on their way toward

fulfilling some of these obligations. There were about six or eight

points that had been suggested, and I will highlight these. But the

government should undertake to identify the needs and fund them 100

percent. These points are: (1) full-time instructors are needed, not

just people who are available on an ad hoc basis — there is a need to

have a comprehensive program of instruction that covers the whole

province; (2) there needs to be an upgrading program in place for those

staff; (3) there need to be special programs for individuals with

special needs; (4) there should be outreach programs for people in

remote areas. And I don't mean just in the populated areas around some

central community. There are many people who are really making an

additional gift of themselves to the province by inhabiting areas that

most Canadians normally would not want to inhabit. This is similar to

the problem that we are having with the medical profession. We need

doctors in remote areas and they are not willing to go because the

profits aren't sufficient, despite the fact that they supposedly have

some concern for the betterment of human health. The others are

resource concepts, in terms of ongoing resource material and

philosophic support at all levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lot of people in this field who are

doing a lot of things in the colleges and resource centres such as

Britannia Centre in the downtown east side, and in federal employment

agencies such as Manpower and so forth, but none of these are

coordinated. The problem is that there needs to be an understanding of

how to be efficient in delivering the services to the immigrant. Of

course, there are refugees who also fall into this category, in terms

of providing services for them.

I don't know if the government really cares that much as long as it

can give the appearance that it is appropriating funds in this area. I

would suggest that if we did this we would benefit far more than our

expenditures. Most people who come to a country of their own will, who

are making a choice to come to a country, who are not citizens by

natural birth, are usually driven by a high level of motivation and

commitment to try and prove themselves, to try and take part and be

independent. But when language is a problem, right off the bat they

will have difficulties socially, difficulties economically — trying to

find employment. It is also a problem if they are attempting to educate

themselves, because they are spending most of their time trying to

understand what is going on. I think this would be an indication of the

government's concern for people, if it were to take the leadership in

this field.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude with a statement on the

government's concept of helping people. I would just like the

government to analyze what the thrust of that over $6 billion budget is

really doing. I would like it to stop and think: "Who are the people

who are going to be directly helped? What does it have to do with the

unemployment situation today? What does it have to do with the virtual

disfranchisement of individuals in the community who no longer feel

that they can be heard?" It is a pretty critical, very urgent situation

for people in the medium- and lower-income areas. They are concerned

because they are being wiped out. In excess of 35 percent of wealth in

this country is controlled by, perhaps, 10 percent of the population,

whereas the low 10 percent are lucky if they control 2 percent of the

wealth, and all those in the middle are scrambling. There are a large

number of people in this society who have no hope unless the government

shows real compassion. They're not going to succeed because you create

some kind of competitive situation in which they have to perform

against insurmountable odds to try and achieve a level of subsistence

that any decent human being would expect. I would ask the government to

question the philosophy behind its concepts.

The questions I'm trying to raise are not questions that normally

are easy to understand when you are the particular collection of

individuals that there is on the government side. With respect, I can

appreciate that. But I think they should make an effort to realize that

they have only one life themselves, and if they have any decency or

concern, they should take some chances on people rather than on

politics.

It is almost a damnable offence — it's probably close to being

indictable, Mr. Speaker — when you consider the surplus they're sitting

on over there, and have the gall to brag about, with the suffering that

is going on in this province today. That is something that I find

despicable. At a time when we should be deficit financing, they are

banking it and saying, "We are good managers," as people are walking

the streets.

They haven't constructed a single rental housing project in my

constituency since they were elected. In fact, they wiped out

everything we were doing because they are fundamentally opposed to it.

"Leave it to the marketplace." Well, I can tell you, nothing is being

constructed by the marketplace as far as housing is concerned. Nothing

is being constructed in Vancouver Centre by those people who are

supposed to be motivated by profit. And to show you how unwise the

decision by their former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

was, he said: "We're not going to control anything after 1974, in terms

of rent controls, because we want to stimulate construction." Well,

nothing's happened. Actually, Mr. Speaker, we do not even have rent

controls in this province.

What are they waiting for? They're waiting for gifts. They're

waiting for welfare — the upper end of welfare — something for nothing.

What I'm suggesting is that your budget is appealing to those who have,

not to those who do not have. If you were to have some faith in the

real resources in this province — that's the people — you'd find they

would be more than willing to go and meet their own needs, if they were

given half a chance. But that's not the way it's going to be. I know

it. You know it. You've been playing games. But come next election you

will find, as my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) suggested the

[ Page 1591 ]

other day, that you've burdened the people with a

great deal. You've burdened them with unemployment, with hard times,

and a high cost of living. But what you've burdened them with the most,

Mr. Speaker, is Social Credit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before recognizing the next speaker, I would caution the previous member about any reference of that manner to the Chair.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the previous

speaker, I'm sure, was not referring to the Chair; it was just that he

inserted the name "Mr. Speaker" in the middle of his sentence, and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am familiar with what took place, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: He wasn't referring to the Speaker; he was referring to the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise

that I will be joining the other members of the government in voting

that you leave the chair so that we can get on with supporting the

marvellous budget that my colleague the Minister of Finance brought

down a few days ago. The members opposite were depressed by that budget

for good reason. You'd be depressed too, Mr. Speaker, if you looked at

how bad your record was and then had to see how good the record of the

present government was. It's appropriate that those members opposite

should discuss gloom and doom, because they understand it so well. When

they're in power they bring it to everyone in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I note that some are even calling it lucky that we've

got such prosperity in British Columbia. Lucky! Well, to paraphrase a

former federal member, who noted that when his party was in power good

times came and when the other party was in power poor times came, are

you going to vote for good luck or bad luck? I should think....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, my colleague down there,

the party Whip (Mr. Mussallem), brought forward the true revelation of

what went on during your years in power, that steep decline in

provincial prosperity.

I dare say there's one problem you might be able to do better with

than our government. That's solving the housing problem. You've talked

so much about it. I'll tell you how they were solving the housing

problem when they were in power: they were driving everybody out of

British Columbia. Our problem is that everybody is coming here now,

because this is the have province in Canada, where prosperity and

opportunity are. We're going to get those houses built for the people

who come to British Columbia, but it's a tough job.

The members opposite talk about the days when people on the opposite

side of the House realized that they had to get together to bring good

government to British Columbia. I remember going to Kamloops during the

1975 campaign. The person who picked me up at the airport said that

when the NDP came to power he headed a large mining exploration

company. He said: "When the NDP came to power I had 250 people working

for me. Guess how many I have now."

I said: "I don't know."

He said: "Zero." The whole business was gone. He said: "It isn't

just that I've lost 250 employees. The people who worked for me were

people who had high skills in the mining field. They've scattered

around the world, and I can't bring those people back and rebuild a

team overnight. "

I don't know how many employees he has now, but it illustrates that

you cannot repair the damage overnight. It takes time to put the bustle

back on. If you've got a sick horse — and that's what British Columbia

had; it had to undergo major surgery when we first came to power — it

takes a while to recover and build the strength back.

The buoyancy of that budget, Mr. Speaker, indicates that British

Columbia has got its muscle back again. When the economy has muscle,

when there's a strong back, it can carry the heavy load of social

services and benefits to people, talked about all the time by the

members opposite. You've got to have a strong back in your economy

before you can provide those kinds of services. What you did was

destroy the economic animal in British Columbia. That's what the graph

of my honourable friend there shows. That's the truth; that's what

happened.

All I can say is, if people want to keep a healthy, strong economy

in British Columbia, they'll keep a government in power that has the

philosophy of Social Credit. The budget that was brought down here is

no better proof of that.

MR. MACDONALD: How can you say that after the book you wrote?

HON. MR. McGEER: Nobody said the economy was bad.

What happened during all those years is that you were propped up in

debate by the people who sat in the Liberal and Conservative benches.

They didn't notice the things that you were saying, but they're

noticing them now because you're the only opposition. I know what you

people want to do. You want to get power again as soon as you can. You

talk about everybody who is a free enterpriser — not just this

government but the people who build the economy of British Columbia —

as being motivated by money, power and greed. That's what you said over

there. That's your philosophy, and that's what you believe the

mainstream of British Columbia is motivated by — not your friends, not

the people you support when you're in government, but the mainstream of

people in British Columbia. Money, power and greed: that's your belief.

You believe in socialism and you believe the other people feel that way.

Well, there's a cost to that, if you want to get power right away. I

noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP was quoted in the press as having

developed a very clever device. They were going to get back early after

dinner, eat lightly, run back to the Legislature, hide behind the

bushes, and then hope somehow they'd be able to defeat the government,

so they thought — not by the power of their policy, their argument or

the belief of the members here in the House or the public of British

Columbia, but by some sly tactic; not, of course, motivated by money,

power or greed, but by the pure motives that your party hold — somehow

mousetrap the situation and hope to gain power that way when they don't

have the confidence of the House and the people.

But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, if that kind of vote ever takes place

by mistake in the House, there's one proper way to deal with it, and

that's to bring in a motion of confidence

[ Page 1592 ]

and find out how the people who are elected to sit

will vote when the question is put to them when they are on this floor.

Don't think for a moment that by some slippery tactic you're going to

win a vote in the House and get an election. And don't think, as many

people in the press have advocated — and I read the papers the same as

you do — that somehow people are going to leave this side of the House,

heaven help us, for that side over there.

It's my job to look after some of the consuming side of our budget

and this is why, for the things that I have to administer, I'm so

grateful that we've got a government and a Minister of Finance that can

provide the sort of economy that will support education, health, social

services, universities, science and communication. There's a strong

element of the future, Mr. Speaker, in each of the areas for which I

have responsibility in this government, and I'd like to speak very

briefly about each of them.

Our universities are where we develop the higher skills among the

young people of our province whom we expect to be the leaders in the

professions and in the business life of our province. The degree to

which we can provide them with the education they need, and the skills

society will require, will in large measure determine the state of our

human condition from the producing side in British Columbia, and

therefore the future health of our province. Many members may have

taken the opportunity to visit the University of British Columbia and

Simon Fraser University at their recent open houses, and to gain from

those displays a peek into what the future is going to bring, in terms

of what the faculty and students at those institutions are now working

upon which will help us in the future.

We have established, to work in conjunction with our universities, a

foundation called Discovery Foundation. This was established, Mr.

Speaker, between the last sitting of this House and the current

session. The objective of Discovery Foundation is to bring to British

Columbia a totally different kind of industry from what we've had in

the past. The government has advanced, through special warrant, some

$13 million to Discovery Foundation, to provide the infrastructure and

the initial buildings that will house the activities which we hope will

change, in the long run, the face of industry in this province.

I think I should describe very briefly for the members the

difference between high-technology industry and the traditional

industries that have driven the economy of this province and this

nation. We have grown up in British Columbia on resource industries.

The industries come here because the coal is here, the trees are here,

the minerals are here, or the power is here. In other parts of Canada,

particularly Ontario and Quebec, there has been manufacturing industry

based on proximity to mass markets, but which operates less efficiently

in this nation than in most developed countries of the world because of

the sparsity of population, thus leaving us in this country with a

standard of living which is lower than the richness of our resources

might make possible. High technology industry isn't based on proximity

to resources or upon proximity to mass markets; it's based solely on

ingenuity and the ability to use scientific skills to produce products

that are unknown, or have been unknown up until the present time.

In the course of establishing a climate for these industries to

operate in British Columbia and in Canada, we have discovered

departures we must make from the traditional approaches to our national

economy. The difference between high-technology industry and the other

types that I've described is that high-technology industry can

establish anywhere. It doesn't depend on mass markets, it doesn't

depend on resources, and it can as easily be found in British Columbia

as in Ontario, California, Washington, Singapore, Ireland, Greece or

any place in the world.

So what must we do in Canada to gain our share? In high technology,

Mr. Speaker, you don't roll your sleeves up and begin to go to work

unless you have a world market. You're not trying to sell something

just in British Columbia or in Canada or in North America. You're

selling to the world, and you're selling skills that no one else

possesses. Therefore, if the people who are to build this industry,

provide the employment and the wealth are to undertake their activities

in this province or in this nation, the manufacturers must be placed on

an equal basis with their counterparts in other developed nations. It's

something, Mr. Speaker, that we have never been forced before to

contemplate in our country, because we felt always that the industries

will have to come to us because we have the resources, or there has to

be manufacturing of a certain primitive kind because there is a mass

market to serve. Since neither of these requirements apply to high

technology, and since the world is the market and the sky is the limit,

then you have to think in a much more intelligent way about your

competitive manufacturing position here versus other areas of the world.

What we've discovered in trying to establish these industries here

in British Columbia is that things are not the same here as elsewhere.

We're going to have to make some changes in our thinking if we want to

benefit from the great prospects that this holds for us, because we've

got the people, we've got the intelligence, we've got the

inventiveness, we've got the capital. But there are certain things we

have to learn.

The first of these — and, Mr. Speaker, I would not have believed it

if this had not been the major impediment during the past three years

to our making progress — is simply getting land. If one goes to

high-technology research parks, they are clearly the most attractive

industrial settlements that exist anywhere in the world. There is no

smoke, there is no pollution, there are none of the problems that

plague heavy manufacturing, because that's not what's involved. It's

taking natural products worth a few cents and making them into

computers, fibre optics, satellites and all of the glamour products of

today that our friends opposite here want just as badly as anybody else

in the world, and perhaps more so. We don't have land in British

Columbia that we're prepared to commit to this kind of development, and

that's been the major impediment. You can't sell from an empty wagon.

We're gradually overcoming this. You know, we're mean people when it

comes to land. We're cautious. We're afraid to use our land, no matter

how attractive the development. We want to either lock it away in parks

or lock it away in agricultural land reserves. You can't provide jobs

and do things for people when you're obsessed with the sorts of

thinking that prevent even the most attractive industrial developments

going ahead.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we lack equivalent opportunities for people

to obtain capital to build plants in Canada. Why should they build in

British Columbia or Quebec or Nova Scotia or anywhere else in Canada if

they can obtain the capital to do the same job in the state of

Washington or in California or in Singapore or West Germany or some

other location in the world? If we want to give our people jobs and

[ Page 1593 ]

opportunities, if we want them to participate in

the excitement of the new industrial revolution, then we have to make

it possible for our Canadian manufacturers who have the skills to build

their plants here rather than elsewhere. There is no point to spending

the money inventing and developing a better mousetrap in British

Columbia if it becomes advantageous to manufacture it and to provide

the jobs and the benefits somewhere else in the world.

So we have to be prepared to provide for our Canadian inventors, our

Canadian manufacturers, land for them to build their plants, capital at

competitive rates, and we have to do other things as well. We have to

understand that we're the most protected nation on earth, but that that

fence we erect around our country to prevent other products coming in

is just as high as the fence our manufacturers who can sell to the

world have to climb over to get their products into foreign markets to

earn the income for Canada that will make it possible for us to have

all the goods and services we desire. The tariff barrier preventing

things coming in is the export barrier to prevent manufactured goods

going out.

It's possible, of course, to establish relationships that make it

easy to move goods back and forth. If, for example, a Canadian

manufacturer wishes to bring in semi-conductor components to build a

computer, he's in the unenviable position of paying a tariff on the

parts coming in and paying another tariff on the foreign goods going

out. We've simply got to cut the red tape — this is at the federal

level — which prevents the easy movement of goods back and forth and

sets up for our manufacturers the kinds of impediments that only hurt

the prosperity of this province and this nation.

Next we need to develop a system — and this is just a little more

difficult, Mr. Speaker — of prototype buying in the country. So much of

high-technology spinoffs that are existent in North America today have

come as a result of prototype buying by the United States defence

forces. We don't have that type of prototype buying in Canada, but we

need its equivalent. If a Canadian company develops a new method for

instrument landing approaches for aircraft, as has been done, and goes

to another country to sell that system — because remember that the

world is going to be the market and they say, "How many have you sold

in Canada?" and the Canadian manufacturer says, "Well, I haven't sold

any," he doesn't have much credibility.

So initial prototypes are something that we need to be able to

support in Canada so that we can get the leverage with worldwide sales,

which are manyfold over that first initial sale. People still talk

about the Avro Arrow as the greatest aircraft that was every designed

and built. The Canadian government years and years ago wouldn't buy a

prototype, and it resulted in the destruction of our aerospace industry

— a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. People in Canada are just beginning to learn

now of the damage that was done by that decision not to purchase a

prototype aircraft.

We're making progress. I cite these problems only as examples of the

kind of economic thinking that has got to begin to penetrate the whole

of the nation, and particularly the federal government, if we're to

move to take advantage of the skills of our people and the

inventiveness of those who go through our universities. We have

obtained some land in British Columbia. I expect that there will be

announcements in the next month or two with respect to the first high

technology developers who will be locating in this province. We've

embarked on a program that will have a long-term payoff. We won't see

the full results of this for another generation, but I suspect in the

coming months we'll begin to see the first initial developments, and I

would think that there would be a continued acceleration in British

Columbia along these lines.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In addition to the opportunities for high-technology industry that

flow from pure invention, unrelated to the natural resources of our

area, we have been given some rare advantages because of the natural

resources that we do possess. Again, our ability to exploit these

resources and take advantage of the new opportunities which have been

presented to us by the OPEC nations — and the blackmail that they've

exerted against the developed nations of the west — is because we have

not nurtured the kinds of skills that are required to exploit these

resources.

One of them, obviously, is coal. My colleague, the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), mentioned today that our known coal

reserves would supply all of the fossil fuel needs of British Columbia

— i.e., substituting for all the oil that we import, because everything

that you can do with oil you can do with coal — at current rates of

consumption for 12,000 years, and enough to satisfy all of the

voracious needs of North America, which have been so criticized and

which have led many to believe that natural resources will run out, for

120 years. The important point, Mr. Speaker, is that we haven't really

begun to look seriously for these resources. After all, if you've got

enough supply for 12,000 years, what's the point in spending money

hunting for more?

We've got a similar situation with respect to our natural gas. We

were running out of natural gas, you will remember, in 1975 when this

government took power. Now we've got so many rigs in the province and

we've discovered so much natural gas that the difficulty is in giving

some kind of a return to the person who spent money exploring, so that

all the money he's put in he hasn't wasted — except for something his

great-grandchildren might inherit, providing the members opposite never

come to power and institute an inheritance tax to take it all away.

So it's a difficult thing to send people out exploring for resources

for which there's no foreseeable need. We've got a tremendous amount of

gas, and I'm sure we're going to discover more. But there will have to

be methods of giving people who do discover gas some opportunity to get

just a little bit of that investment back.

Our biggest requirement at the present time is to find a short-term

solution for the gasoline we burn in our cars; that's where most of the

oil we import is used. We can make it from coal and we can use our own

natural gas; and by developing technology we can do this simply and

cheaply. It's something which the Science ministry is addressing at the

present time. We'll have enough to drive our cars and everybody else's

cars farther into the future than we can see. So our problem is not a

shortage of materials; we've got far more than we need. Our problem is

neglect of technology. We don't know how to use it quickly and simply

when we need it.

We have something else as our ace in the hole that should be

mentioned. As the OPEC nations push up the price of oil every three or

four months — believe me, they're going to continue to do so until

alternatives are discovered in quantity; they've found that the price

of oil is inelastic, and they're going to push and push and push — what

happens as these

[ Page 1594 ]

prices escalate is that all the prices of chemical feedstock in the world begin to soar with them. We know

this because of our automobile we drive every day — and that's what

we're worried about. But lying behind are all the manifold goods made

by the chemical industry around the world; they're dependent upon

feedstocks, principally from natural gas and from oil. There was a

time, when I worked in the chemical industry in the United States, when

these things were all made from coal. That technology has been

forgotten. Middle East oil and gas finds in the Texas fields in the

United States made feedstock from these two sources more plentiful and

cheaper; but those are becoming very dear. What we have in British

Columbia today is the basis for producing not just chemical feedstock

but the whole range of plastics and manufactured chemicals that flow

from that. Again, it's a question of technology, and it's the

responsibility of the Ministry of Science to begin looking at some of

those opportunities.

Finally, I'd like to talk for a moment or two about the third

responsibility I carry, which lies in the field of communications.

Here, again, we're entering into a revolution in our lives which has

been brought about by rapidly advancing technology. We will very soon

have in our homes information brought to us over television sets of a

totally different order of magnitude than anything we've dreamed about

in the past. This is because laser technology, fibre optics, computers

and satellites — four important new technologies — have been applied

and are now being developed into systems to bring information into the

home.

Right now there are over 100 television stations on satellite. For

the benefit of members, before too long I hope to have some of these

receiving devices, so we can have an opportunity to discover what is

already available in the airwaves simply by developing a more

sophisticated type of antenna for a television set. At the present time

much of it is entertainment, because that seems to be the source of

information people most desire; but coming hard on its heels will be

education. It's my hope that within a few months we will have an

educational television network operating in British Columbia, capable

of bringing hard educational programs into every home in the province.

As we go into the future, moving into the hundred or more channels that

will be available on television sets as a result of these new

technologies, people will have available all kinds of specialized

information in areas that were totally closed to them before:

information about resources, the law, health, economics, and perhaps

even the debates in this Legislature.

These, Mr. Speaker, will be among the variety of new types of

entertainment and education that will be available as a result of

satellite transmission and more sophisticated cable operations that

will be able to move back and forth. Already we're broadcasting

educational programs from BCIT to 11 centres in British Columbia — in

the fields of education, health and forestry. There's one on now on

forestry management. These programs are giving to those who are in

remote areas of the province an opportunity to gain information that's

been denied them in the past. Most important, I believe, in this new

information revolution which we are on the threshold of today will be

the opportunity for two-way interaction. It may be possible for you to

do your shopping, to do your banking, to read the newspapers, not by

having them delivered to your home but by pushing a button and having

it displayed on your screen.

Someone explained to me once, Mr. Speaker, that to keep the Vancouver Sun

in operation it would require a strip of trees the width of a football

field and the length of the country totally dedicated to the Vancouver Sun . That's how many trees we have to grow to keep the Vancouver Sun

publishing every day, if you can believe that. Well, the time may come

in the future when we won't have to use all the trees for that purpose,

but we'll just be able to put it on the screen and push a button if we

want it and push another button if we don't. So, if you're going to

make available to people tremendous masses of information, which will

be possible once fibre-optic transmission is introduced, then you have

to have, of course, methods by which this information can be selected

and displayed upon your screen.

All of these new developments will require a certain amount, heaven

help us, of regulation by government. I would like to think that by

anticipating the new technologies and the new demands, those who would

regulate in government for once wouldn't do what always happens when

regulatory agencies are created — namely, inhibit new and effective

things from being done — but would actually anticipate and help. The

most important aspect of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is to take advantage

of all of these opportunities, and that can only happen when there's

sound government dedicated to the sort of principles that allow people

who are capable of producing for society to do so. It should not be

controlled by government regulation. Give them an opportunity to

produce for the others, and then all the benefits that you people talk

about all the time without ever thinking about the people who have to

produce them, without thinking about the strong back that this economy

must have if we're to carry the social services in British Columbia....

You'll be able to have the things that you talk about all the time. The

way to get them is to keep that group there in opposition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. I really do enjoy his speeches. It's not

that the content has changed much over the years, because ever since

I've been in the House the content has been relatively the same; I

think it's speech number six.

However, I would like to make a point, Mr. Speaker, and have it

recorded. It seems to me that in this particular session of the

Legislature the Social Credit members have been actually refighting the

1975 election campaign. They haven't been defending their government's

approach to the budget, in this case, which we're now debating, or will

be in a minute. The fact is we're still fighting those same old issues,

and I think people are getting a bit tired of it. What we'd like to

hear from that side is a real defence of this budget, and we haven't

heard that.

I am going to outline two or three other reasons why I won't be

supporting this budget, but that alone — that we haven't had a good

defence of this budget — would be reason enough not to support it.

Just to take a bit of an overview on this budget to begin with, I've

read it quite carefully and attempted to analyze how it's going to

affect people in my riding and throughout the province. There are quite

a few good things in it, although in some ways they don't go far

enough. For example, approximately two-thirds of the unanticipated

revenues of over $900 million in this budget are not from taxation but

from natural resources, and can be largely attributed to policies that

were brought in by an NDP government. Lumber sales were expected to

decline sharply this year but, as people in

[ Page 1595 ]

the United States kept on building homes, the income from lumber

sales was much more than anticipated. So there was another source of

income for this government. The $1.5 billion in profits to this

government over the last five years or so was brought in by the B.C.

Petroleum Corporation — a product of an NDP government.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the B.C. Petroleum Corporation was started by the NDP government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In spite of the fact that your government

attempted to dismember — and is in the process of dismembering — many

of the operations that were started by the NDP, you've never

dismembered that operation, because you know a good thing when you see

it, Mr. Member for Omineca. Besides, why aren't you getting ready for

your committee next week? Go do some research.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

The budget goes on to discuss research and development. They're

allotting $6.5 million for research and development this year in the

province. In my view, that's quite an insignificant sum for this major

type of activity in which we should be engaged today. We're all aware

that, as governments like this allow foreign capital and foreign

interests to take over and control the basic economy of this province,

when those foreign interests take over the control of that resource or

activity or whatever it may be, they usually promptly close down

research and development activities in this province and in this

country. I think that has to be stopped. In any event, I don't think it

will be stopped by this government. To budget only $6.5 million for

that purpose is not nearly enough.

There was no announced increase in the homeowner grant. In fact,

there has been no increase in the homeowner grant since 1979. That was

an election year, but between 1975 and 1979 there was no increase.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Don't make me shout; if you get me mad you know what happens.

The last announced homeowner grant by this government was purely an

election ploy, as are so many other of their budgetary items. When it

comes to providing care for the sick and handicapped in this province,

what do we see? Not a great deal, although it was a major issue in the

last campaign. But when it comes to blacktop, they find all kinds of

money. I would venture to say right now that in the next provincial

election — some two or three years down the road, unless we catch these

guys napping again — we will see another increase in the homeowner

grant. I will admit that they increased the grant for seniors, but I

would suspect that very few people are going to be able to take

advantage of that particular portion of the grant.

While I'm discussing seniors, this budget allows $1 million for senior citizens'

housing. How far do you think that will go? Not too darn far, in my opinion.

I think it's a pretty paltry sum and a pretty paltry way to treat the senior

citizens in our province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget discusses a lot of things — just about every

aspect of government, I guess. Certainly one of the things of interest

to me, and to a lot of people in my riding, is the forestry portion of

the budget speech. I'm willing to say right off the top that it looks

like progress. I think the $146.6 million allotment for reforestation

in the budget is a good start. It's certainly breaking a tradition of

this government. In the past they usually underspent their

reforestation programs; we'll see what they do with this program.

What I'm getting at here is that first of all, all of this $146.6

million allotted in the budget for reforestation will not be spent for

that purpose. In fact, if I am to believe what I have been told by some

foresters recently, only a small portion of that $146.6 million has to

actually be spent for reforestation over the five-year period. There

have been a number of agencies over the past week or so who have said:

"Well, look, it's better than it was, but there should be far more

being done." This budget doesn't even come close to coming up to the

Sloan commission report which took place over 20 years ago. It

suggested at that time, just to keep pace with the logging activities

and harvesting activities taking place, that approximately 48,000 acres

per year would have to be reforested. The program announced by this

government allows only about 38,000 acres a year to be reforested, if

the government follows through on its program, and they might have some

difficulty doing that, although I really hope not.

The paper that was brought down last week by the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland).... Right here I want to give him a little

bouquet, a little one, because we're going to have ample opportunity to

discuss this whole paper during his estimates. But look, this was not a

bad policy. It's called "The Forest and Range Resource Analysis: A

Five-Year Program

Summary," just for the record, and it does go into a

lot of detail and explains a lot about what's happened in the past, and

the way governments, any government, should perhaps be going. A lot of

the credit will have to go to Mr. Pearse, who some time ago started the

cycle of this type of report, the people in the ministry and the

minister for initiating.... Look, it's not bad. It doesn't go far

enough, but it's a start. All I can say is it's a good start. I know

that particular paper will be of value to people who are interested in

the forest industry for many years to come.

However, there is a lot of work still to be done. A direction,

perhaps.... I haven't read the whole thing; it's bigger than two

telephone books. I may never read the whole thing; I don't know. Don't

smile; we're getting to the good part now, Mr. Minister. The fact is

that a lot more has to be done, and the direction in terms of timber

allocation, perhaps, to the unintegrated, small independents....

Questions like that have to be addressed. The paper doesn't really

address itself to those problems.

In all fairness, I had a discussion yesterday with the minister

about current stumpage rates for the small, unintegrated independent

logger on the coast of British Columbia, many of whom are now simply

not starting to open up their operations as they normally do this time

of year, because of stumpage rates. There's a reason for that. However,

I will say, in fairness, that the minister is taking steps, and I hope

he follows through with the proposals he put forward to me

[ Page 1596 ]

yesterday on this issue, which mean literally hundreds of people on

the coast of British Columbia will be put back to work within the next

two weeks, when the minister is prepared to do his.... Well, I'll tell

you, he knows what he has to do and I am sure he'll follow through.

Another area of this budget which is of extreme interest to me is

the area dealing with energy. I wish I had some more of it this

afternoon. Anyway, the budget document goes on at some length about

various energy programs that the government is thinking of and may

initiate. As my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) suggested

here the other day, to say something nice about the budget, the fact

that there is $27 million over a four-year period going into energy

conservation programs is a start, but it's really quite a paltry sum

when you think of the magnitude of the problem. We'll get into that in

a minute, maybe.

In my view, that sum should have been, and could have been, easily

$400 million or $500 million, which sounds like a lot of money. It is a

lot of money. But there's a way to save and come up with this money.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year and over the last couple

of years in this Legislature, I frequently discussed the matter of a

proposed transmission line from Cheekye to Dunsmuir on Vancouver

Island. I'm going to do it again today. The reason I discuss that

particular project in this vein of energy conservation is that almost

three years ago our caucus asked this government to place a moratorium

on that proposed transmission line until we've had an opportunity to

examine the need requirements for that line.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear at the outset that my

colleagues and I recognize very well the future energy requirements of

Vancouver Island. But the question I'm asking here is: was that the

right way to go, or were there other things we could have been doing?

If the government was wrong in this decision of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir

transmission line, don't you think a lot of that $1 billion that it's

going to cost to construct that line could have gone into energy

conservation programs on Vancouver Island, as well as perhaps into

initiating that proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island? For

example, B.C. Hydro's own document here indicates that for a limited

cost, for as much as $100 million perhaps, the energy losses in

buildings — depending on their age, and they have a whole list I won't

go through.... Up to 30 and 60 percent could be saved by energy

conservation programs. I know that an energy conservation program will

not run a pulpmill or heat a home effectively and all of those things;

and as I said before, all of us on this side of the House thoroughly

recognize Vancouver Island's future energy requirements. But you see

the premise on which Hydro — which, by the way, seems to still be in

control of energy policies in this province, and to some extent the

government — went ahead and proceeded with this particular project in

spite of the fact that a lot of people questioned the need for it. I'm

going to give you some examples.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to pass too quickly over this proposed

natural gas line, because it's a matter of great interest in my part of

the coast and on Vancouver Island. I want to remind the House that

natural gas is a B.C. resource, a lot of which we're now exporting to

the United States to create job opportunities in that part of the

world. I've nothing against our American friends, but the fact is, we

have to look after ourselves a little bit first. I think we should have

the first opportunity, as British Columbians, to utilize natural gas. And the only way to get that resource to Vancouver Island, the only

major area in the province at the present time that does not have

access to this resource, is by pipeline.

There are a lot of people in my part of the coast advocating the

northern route, the Westcoast Transmission proposal. I've met with

Westcoast Transmission and B.C. Hydro and looked at their proposal, and

personally — I'm not speaking for anybody else — I support the

Westcoast proposal at this time. However, I think that natural gas,

which not only is a cheaper fuel but burns cleaner, would be of great

benefit to people of my part of the coast: plants like Port Mellon,

Woodfibre, Powell River, Campbell River, etc. I think that the

government should really get moving and make some decisions in this

regard. They've arbitrarily gone ahead with a transmission line that

hardly anybody wanted, and here they're dithering and bothering about a