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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1553 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act Respecting the Commercial Use of Lie Detectors (Bill M 203). Mr. Leggatt.

Introduction and first reading –– 1553

Petition: Cultus Lake Park Board.

Mr. Ritchie –– 1553

Oral questions.

Funding for Home and School Association. Mr. Lauk –– 1553

Pharmacare refunds. Mr. Leggatt –– 1553

Administration of justice. Mr. Lauk –– 1554

Refit of Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Barber –– 1554

Sale of Elk River Timber Co. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1555

Energy policy. Mr. King –– 1555

Ministerial statement

Administration of justice.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1556

Mr. Lauk –– 1561

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1561

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Mr. Mussallem –– 1561

Ms. Brown –– 1564

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1568

Mr. Lauk –– 1573

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1577

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are some 100

members of the Home and School Association of British Columbia, a group

of parents who met with me and my officials and with both caucuses

today. They are here celebrating PTA Day. I am wearing their badge. I

would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today I note the presence of

the hon. Allan McKinnon, Member of Parliament for Victoria. This would

be an appropriate time to congratulate Mr. McKinnon on his personal

re-election in the federal election of last month and to tell him once

again that this government enjoys working with him in federal matters

which affect the Victoria area. Would the House make him welcome today.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the second group of students from my constituency

sponsored by Crown Zellerbach is here today. They are from Ladysmith Senior

Secondary School, with their teachers, Mr. Helmkay and Mr. Foster. I would ask

the members to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask members of this

House to welcome from my constituency, representing Sir Alexander Mackenzie

School PTA, Mr. and Mrs. Baisden, Monica Buchanan, and Olga Deford, and, representing

the B.C. Home and School Federation, Elizabeth Schwartz.

Lastly, I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that

Olive Wyatt is in our House today. I would like to pay tribute to Olive

Wyatt, because she has been one of the most sensitive and caring people

regarding child abuse in this province, and has been a great help to

our ministry. I would like to ask the House to welcome her.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery,

also with the Home and School Federation, is a fellow I used to go to

the brother of the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I wish

everyone would join me in greeting Mr. Jack Gilmore.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, also seated in the gallery are ten

members of the Council of Parent-Participation Pre-Schools. Would the

House join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, here today to visit with us from Port Alberni is Mayor Robertson. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT RESPECTING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF LIE DETECTORS

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M 203,

An Act Respecting the

Commercial Use of Lie Detectors, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Petitions

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to present the petition

of the Cultus Lake Park Board praying for the passing of

an act

intituled

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act.

Motion approved.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Cultus Lake Park Board be received.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATION

MR. LAUK: A question to the hon. Minister of Education.

British Columbia is the only province in Canada that does not provide

financial assistance to the Home and School Association. Has the

minister decided to reinstitute provincial funding for the B.C. Home

and School Association?

HON. MR. SMITH: The policy of the ministry was not to fund

the Home and School Association, the B.C. Teachers' Federation or the

B.C. School Trustees by giving them general grants, but only to fund

those organizations that are directly delivering educational service to

children. However, the ladies and gentlemen from that association met

with me today and pressed their case, and I will review it. I thank the

member for his question.

PHARMACARE REFUNDS

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Health. Under the present pharmacare act, all claims for

refunds must be filed prior to March 31 this year. That leaves only 12

days for the people of British Columbia if they wish to seek refunds in

regard to the pharmacare program. My question is simply this: I haven't

seen any notification from the minister's department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong minister.

MR. LEGGATT: The Minister of Health is not looking after pharmacare?

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that minister makes so much noise, I thought he looked after everything in this House.

[ Page 1554 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has the option of redirecting the question if he so wishes.

MR. LEGGATT: I'll redirect it to the Minister of Human Resources, and I will repeat the question so that she'll be fully familiar with it.

Under the present pharmacare act, all claims for refunds must be filed by March

31. There are 12 days left for the people of British Columbia to file those

particular claims. My question is: why has the ministry not provided any notice

to the public of British Columbia that those refunds should be filed?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question

as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: A separate question; we cannot accept a supplementary. The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister now advise the House whether

it is the policy of her ministry to discourage B.C. residents from

filing these refunds in order to provide a surplus in that particular

part of the estimates?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the question rhetorical? A further question.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Attorney-General regarding

the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the allegations

surrounding that person. Has the member for Central Fraser Valley

requested a charge be laid so his name can be cleared?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General decided to have an independent judicial inquiry to investigate whether a charge should be laid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no, but I don't want to

leave the matter there. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) is, I am informed, a member of the bar of this province, and

therefore I would expect that he would know the law which would deal

with the way in which charges are laid in this matter.

MR. LAUK: This is not a usual case; it's a case involving an

hon. member of this House. Has the Attorney-General decided to release

Henry Friesen's affidavit?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Friesen's affidavit, which I've never

seen, is, I understand, a part of the material considered by the police

in the course of their investigation. It is not the practice, in the

public interest, to release material from police investigation files.

MR. LAUK: Public interest includes the interest of the hon.

member for Central Fraser Valley; he may wish it to be released. My

question is to the Attorney-General. Did Mr. Friesen at any time state

that any allegations contained in his affidavit were untrue?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the matter to which the member refers.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General going to answer the question or not?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General apprise himself of the facts and advise the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am unable to answer a question of which I have no knowledge.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General take steps to gain the knowledge?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Will the Attorney General

take steps..?" the question is out of order. If the question is, "Has

the Attorney-General taken steps..?" the question is in order.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General decided to take the necessary steps to gain such knowledge?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there's no obligation upon me to make such a decision. I do not intend to take the action suggested by the member.

REFIT OF QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. BARBER: My question is to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways, who is responsible for B.C. Steamships Co. Can the

minister inform the House whether or not B.C. Steamships has awarded a

contract for the refit, and for the drawings required for the refit, of

the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert ?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, the answer is no.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or

not he has received information from B.C. Steamships as to when, if at

all, they propose to award a contract for the redrawing and the refit

of the Queen of Prince Rupert .

HON. MR. MAIR: That's future policy. That's out of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think that's business that's coming in the future.

MR. BARBER: My question is perfectly in order. It is asking whether

or not he has received information….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's for the Speaker to say, not for you.

MR. BARBER: And his silence indicated it was in order.

Interjections.

[ Page 1555 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

MR. BARBER: Can the minister inform us what decisions have

been taken by B.C. Steamships or, perhaps, by B.C. Ferries — for which

he is also responsible — for the redesign and the refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert ? Will there be a redesign? Will there be a refit? If so, when will it commence and who will do the job?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order. The last four parts of the question are out of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm pretty confused; but I'll tell you this: B.C. Ferries owns the Queen of Prince Rupert , and they will be doing the designing and awarding of contracts for conversion.

MR. BARBER: To the same minister, I also find it difficult to

follow that answer, because I've been informed — perhaps wrongly; I

stand to be corrected — that in fact the drawings have been prepared.

So let me put the question, if I may, another way. Is the minister

aware today of any drawings, any plans for refit having been made for

the proposed refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert to serve on the Victoria to Seattle run?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'm aware of some drawings that have been done.

MR. BARBER: Could the minister tell the House who prepared those drawings and with what authority?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to the minister.

It's an important question in my riding. People wish to know what the

refit requirements are. The minister tells us he is aware of drawings.

Can he tell us who has prepared those drawings and under what authority?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, you'll be informed in due course of that.

SALE OF ELK RIVER TIMBER CO.

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

Forests. As the minister knows, Elk River Timber Co. Ltd. has owned

about 103,000 acres of quality, fee simple land near Campbell River and

sells about 35 million board feet of timber on the Vancouver log market

— some 3 percent of the total. Did the minister consider purchasing

this valuable timberland for the Crown when the company was recently

offered for sale?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no.

MR. GABELMANN: Will the minister take steps to ensure that

the timber previously provided by Elk River continues to be sold on the

Vancouver log market now that the company has been purchased by B.C.

Forest Products?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's future action. It's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry that I phrased that

badly. Has the minister taken steps to ensure that the timber provided

by Elk River remains sold on the Vancouver log marker now that the

company has been sold to BCFP?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Forests does not have the authority to direct the sale of timber from private land.

MR. GABELMANN: Another question, Mr. Speaker. What steps has

the minister taken to ensure that independent sawmillers such as Raven

Lumber Ltd. do not suffer from the sale of a traditional supplier to

one of the major integrated forest companies?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the sale of cutting rights

to Crown timber, as placed in the hands of many companies and

individuals.... These people can do with the timber what they wish, so

long as it is manufactured in British Columbia. We do not direct timber

to any specific location or operator.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, so that I understand the answer,

does that mean that if the result of the sale means the closure of the

sawmilling operations in Campbell River, the minister has not decided

to take any action?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's hypothetical.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me try again. My problem, Mr. Speaker, is

trying to suit your very exacting needs to keep these questions in

order. My concern is: has the minister spent any time worrying about,

thinking about or deciding about the problem that might well exist in

Campbell River if the sawmilling operations there do not receive logs

that they have received for many years?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Forests and

I, as the minister, are always concerned about the supply of timber for

all forestry operations in B.C.

ENERGY POLICY

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The minister announced, a little

over a month ago, his new B.C. energy policy, which stated basically

that major energy projects which have significant social, environmental

and economic implications.... Recognizing the need for comprehensive

advance evaluation of these energy developments, the government will

set up a new integrated review process. He also said that full

opportunity would be provided for public input. Does the minister

consider the intended hydro project to be constructed by Noranda on the

Goldstream River north of Revelstoke to be a project which is outside

the context of his energy policy?

[ Page 1556 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, we consider that project and every other project to be within the context of the energy policy.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, has the minister had any

meetings with respect to the precise dimensions of this power project,

or has he given any indication to Noranda that they would be in a

position to proceed with construction without the necessity for a

public hearing?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member had read all

of the energy policy he would have realized there is also a provision

in there for smaller hydro projects which are outside the British

Columbia Hydro grid and which are not included in Hydro's advance

proposals to proceed in another manner than through the normal B.C.

Hydro development of that project. The policy statement that has been

issued states that projects under 20 megawatts will be approved in the

normal manner that is presently in place with the additional input of

British Columbia Hydro to ensure that those projects do fit within the

context of the energy policy, as is required.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we don't have the major energy

project review process in place at this present time, and companies

such as Noranda have had applications before the controller of water

rights for a number of months — in fact, I understand for two years in

the case of Noranda — and the controller of water rights has issued, as

I understand it, a water licence, which is not under my ministry, but

that's the procedure which has been followed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On March 7, 1980, I indicated to you and to

the members of this House that I would be making a review into certain

matters touching upon the Deputy Attorney-General which were raised in

the House on that day. I rise now to make a statement with respect to

those matters which touch upon the conduct of Deputy Attorney General

Vogel. They were raised in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

television newscast and broadcast over CBUT as part of the CBC evening

news at 6 p. m. on March 6, 1980.

The telecast, or the principal portion thereof, was, I am advised,

rebroadcast during the 11 p.m. newscast on that same day, and excerpts

were shown during the national television news of the CBC. The

allegations against the Deputy Attorney-General of British Columbia

arose in respect of what were identified in the program as three

specific cases. The announcer for the CBC evening news on March 6 was

Mr. Bill Good Jr., and he introduced the telecast on that occasion

using the words:

"A CBC evening news investigation has turned up

evidence that British Columbia's Deputy Attorney-General, Dick Vogel,

has used his position to influence the course of justice to help

friends and associates. Our own investigation shows how Vogel has

interfered in the judicial system. It is a complex story that raises

serious questions about justice. With the details he tracked down,

here's Chris Bird."

Because of the complex story, Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for

the length of this statement. Let me say at the outset, however, that I

am fully satisfied that Deputy Attorney-General Richard Vogel is an

honest man. In dealing with the results of the review which I have

personally undertaken with the assistance of senior officials in the

criminal justice division of the Ministry of the Attorney-General, and

with the invaluable assistance of Mr. John Hall, a highly reputed

lawyer specializing in criminal law, I propose to deal with the

allegations and the cases in the order in which they were presented on

the telecast.

Case No. 1: This case arose out of charges laid against one Mickey

Moran, who is described in the telecast as "a well-known Kootenays

lawyer who ran as a Socred candidate in 1956." The reporter also points

out that "he (Moran) and Dick Vogel had been friends since the early

sixties, when Vogel himself was a Kootenays lawyer." As indicated in

the telecast, Mr. Moran was involved in a motor vehicle accident at

Christina Lake on March 14, 1978, as a consequence of which Mr. Moran

was, on March 18, 1978, charged with impaired driving and a failure to

submit to a breathalyser test. He was, on April 11, 1978, charged with

dangerous driving arising from the same incident.

In the course of my review I interviewed Mr. Brian Nattrass, who was

then Crown counsel of Nelson, B.C.; Mr. Brian Weddell, the regional

Crown counsel for the Kootenay region; Mr. Robert Moffat, Crown counsel

at Vernon; Mr. Thomas C. Smith, who was then senior Crown counsel at

Nelson; and Mr. Nils Jensen, presently Crown counsel at Nelson, B.C.

The allegation against the Deputy Attorney-General is contained in

the statement by the CBC reporter Chris Bird, namely: "We've learned

that a senior prosecutor has complained to colleagues that Vogel phoned

a local prosecutor and suggested he lay an additional dangerous driving

charge because Moran would plead guilty to that." From my interview

with Mr. Nattrass it is evident that the charges of impaired driving

and refusal to submit to a breathalyser test in accordance with the

requirements of the Criminal Code of Canada were laid on March 18, 1978

by the RCMP. Mr. Nattrass laid the additional charge of dangerous

driving.

Mr. Nattrass has informed me that at no time did he have any

communication with or received any instructions from Deputy

Attorney-General Vogel with respect to the laying of any charge. He

further informs me that the decision to lay the dangerous driving

charge was made by him and confirmed with his regional Crown counsel,

Brian Weddell. I am further informed by Mr. Nattrass that his only

communication with Mr. Vogel during the time he was Crown counsel at

Nelson occurred on or about February 2, 1978, one month and 12 days

before the incident in which Mr. Moran was involved, during the course

of a routine visit of the Deputy Attorney-General to Crown counsel

offices at Nelson, B.C.

After the laying of these charges, the file on this matter was

brought to the attention of Thomas C. Smith, then senior Crown counsel

at Nelson. Mr. Smith, being aware of the active involvement of Mr.

Moran as counsel in criminal matters in the Nelson-Castlegar area,

communicated with regional Crown counsel Brian Weddell and recommended

to him that the conduct of these charges be placed in the hands of

Crown counsel from outside the region. To this request Mr. Weddell

acceded in accordance with his practice when dealing with charges

against persons whose occupations bring them into close relationship

with the courts. He accordingly directed that this case be conducted by

Mr. Robert Moffat, who was then senior Crown counsel at Vernon, B.C.

I interviewed Mr. Moffat and was advised by him that from the time

the conduct of these matters was placed in his hands, he had no

communication with or instructions from

[ Page 1557 ]

the Deputy Attorney-General or any other person in

the Ministry of the Attorney-General. All decisions that were made with

regard to the disposition of the several charges against Mr. Moran were

made by Mr. Moffat up to and including the appearance before His

Honour, Judge Goulet, chief judge of the provincial court at Grand

Forks, on February 9, 1979. On that occasion counsel for Mr. Moran

entered a plea of guilty and following submissions from counsel Chief

Judge Goulet gave judgment, granting an absolute discharge for Moran on

the charge of dangerous driving.

Chris Bird, the CBC reporter, in the course of the telecast stated:

"On the morning the Moran case was finally heard, the prosecution

dropped the original two charges, which carried mandatory penalties."

I'm advised by Mr. Moffat that such a statement is technically correct,

but that he decided in June 1978 that the evidence available for the

Crown would not support the impaired driving charge and he so advised

Mr. Moran at that time, Mr. Moran then not being represented by counsel.

Mr. Moffat further advises me that he decided to stay the charge of

refusing to submit to a breathalyser test upon the completion of his

interview of the witnesses for the Crown on February 8, 1979. He

informed counsel for Mr. Moran of that decision on the evening of that

day.

In response to the question posed by me to Mr. Moffat concerning his

conduct of these charges against Mr. Moran, Mr. Moffat responded: "I

have never spoken to Mr. Vogel to my knowledge in my life, and I spoke

to nobody else in Victoria about the matter, either before I was

appointed by Weddell or during the time that I was on the case or after

the case."

Following the disposition of the charge against Mr. Moran by Chief

Judge Goulet and pending the receipt of a transcript of the

proceedings, Mr. Moffat, on the instructions of Regional Crown Counsel

Brian Weddell, requested Crown Counsel Jensen, who was then at Nelson,

to file a notice of appeal against the sentence. Upon receipt by Mr.

Moffat of a transcript of the proceedings, he forwarded it to Regional

Crown Counsel Brian Weddell. I'm informed by Regional Crown Counsel

Weddell that upon his review of the transcript of the proceedings he

concluded that the Crown could not succeed on an appeal against

sentence. He sent a copy of the transcript of the proceedings to

Assistant Deputy Attorney-General Neil McDiarmid, who in a telephone

conversation with Weddell, confirmed that opinion. As a consequence the

Crown abandoned its appeal.

In the course of the telecast, the interview by Chris Bird of Mr.

Joe Lucas, who apparently is the chairman of the local justice council,

elicited from Mr. Lucas the response that "special treatment was

given." According to the statement by Mr. Lucas, he reached that

conclusion because the matter was heard by Chief Judge Goulet on other

than a normal court day, by a judge who was "brought in to listen to

the case," and "a special prosecutor was brought in." In this regard, I

have already indicated that the normal practice of Regional Crown

Counsel Weddell in such instances was to assign a prosecutor from

outside the region. Inquiries which I have made of the associate chief

judge of the provincial court indicate that Chief Judge Goulet, who is

presently absent from the province, heard this case at the request of

the administrative judge for the region. The date for the hearing of

the matter was fixed by Chief Judge Goulet, based upon his availability

to attend at Grand Forks for that purpose, and was set without

consideration to what might or might not have been a normal court day.

I am further advised that counsel for the defence attempted to obtain

an adjournment of the case from February 9, 1979, but that Chief Judge

Goulet refused to grant an adjournment.

With respect to the involvement of Crown Counsel Nils Jensen, my

interview with him discloses that his only

part in this matter

consisted of the filing of the notice of appeal and the abandonment

thereof on the instructions of Regional Crown Counsel Weddell.

Based upon my interviews with Regional Crown Counsel Weddell, it is

clear that, contrary to the report of Chris Bird, in the course of the

telecast, Brian Weddell had no complaint about Deputy Attorney-General

Vogel's interference in the Moran case, and that such denial was made

directly to Mr. Bird by Mr. Weddell in the course of an interview which

was not shown as part of the telecast.

My review of this case discloses no basis for the allegation made by

Mr. Bird against the Deputy Attorney-General, with respect to the

charges laid against Mr. Moran, and clearly no basis for any suggestion

that Mr. Vogel attempted to "influence the course of justice to help

friends and associates," or "interfered in the judicial system."

Case number two pertains to a charge against Andrew Rigg of

operating a motor vehicle, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity

that the proportion thereof in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of

alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was a 17-year-old boy, the son of Dr. Michael Rigg.

Andrew Rigg was apprehended by the Vancouver city police in respect of

this matter on October 14, 1977, following which he submitted to a

breath analysis. The police report indicates that the analysis showed a

.12 reading.

The progress of this case was set out in a letter from R. Bruce

Donald, senior prosecutor, at 222 Main Street, Vancouver, B.C.,

addressed to then Attorney-General Gardom, on November 15, 1978. A copy

of this letter was featured in the CBC telecast. From Mr. Donald's

letter it is established that Mr. John McAlpine acted for the accused,

and he requested the prosecutor to divert the case. This was refused by

Mr. Donald. Subsequently, Mr. Vogel, following a communication from Mr.

McAlpine, discussed the diversion of the case with Mr. Donald, who

maintained the view that diversion should not be used in this instance.

The case was not diverted. It went forward to trial before His Honour

Judge Bewley, following which the charge was dismissed.

Crown Counsel Donald took the position that the case was dismissed

without proper grounds, and referred the matter to regional Crown

counsel in Vancouver for consideration of an appeal. Normal procedures

were followed in this instance, and an appeal was launched. Following

the launching of the appeal, Mr. John McAlpine approached Crown Counsel

Donald and suggested that the appeal should be stopped. This was

refused. Following this refusal, Mr. McAlpine communicated with Mr.

Vogel, and the case was subsequently discussed by Mr. Donald with Mr.

Vogel and Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid. Following that

discussion, Mr. McDiarmid and Mr. Donald both expressed the view that

the appeal should proceed, but Mr. Vogel remained of the view that it

should not proceed. The appeal was set for May 19, 1978, and the matter

was a subject of further discussions between Mr. Vogel and Mr.

McAlpine, and later between Mr. Vogel and Regional Crown Counsel

Filmer. Mr. Vogel then gave Filmer written instruction that the appeal

was not to be proceeded with, and the appeal was abandoned.

[ Page 1558 ]

In the CBC telecast it is inferred that Mr. Vogel involved himself

in this case because of his friendship with Dr. Michael Rigg and his

family. My inquiries into this matter do not disclose such a close

personal relationship. The statement that Mr. Vogel and Dr. Rigg are

"social friends" is not supportable. I interviewed Dr. Rigg and was

advised that he first met Mr. Vogel approximately 10 years ago when he

made a house call at Mr. Vogel's home for the purpose of attending

professionally upon Mr. Vogel's nephew. Dr. Rigg is not the physician

for Mr. Vogel and his family, but Dr. Rigg's partner is the physician

for one of Mr. Vogel's brothers. Dr. Rigg attended the call, as his

partner was not at that time on duty.

Dr. Rigg also told me that Mr. Vogel had visited the Rigg house only

on one occasion, to obtain some papers associated with St. George's

School Foundation, of which Dr. Rigg and Mr. Vogel were trustees.

Apparently, over four years of holding the position of trustee, Dr.

Rigg had met Mr. Vogel on only two occasions.

The telecast also claimed that Mrs. Rigg and Mrs. Vogel "played

tennis together." This is denied by Mrs. Rigg, and Mrs. Vogel advises

that she does not play tennis and does not know Mrs. Rigg.

Dr. Rigg does know Mrs. Vogel — to give her her proper title, it is

Dr. Vogel, she being a public health physician — but there is no basis

for concluding that the relationship between Dr. and Mrs. Rigg and Mr.

and Dr. Vogel is one which can be characterized as a friendship.

My review into this matter has failed to disclose any suggestion

that there was any communication between Dr. Rigg and Mr. Vogel with

respect to the conduct of this case.

Mr. Donald, being extremely upset with respect to the handling of

the Rigg appeal, raised his concerns with Mr. Vogel on June 19, 1978,

and subsequently met with him to discuss the matter in September of

that year. This discussion failed to resolve the concerns of Mr. Donald

and, as a consequence, he wrote to Attorney-General Gardom on November

15, 1978. On receipt of Mr. Donald's letter, Mr. Gardom referred the

matter to Assistant Deputy Attorney General McDiarmid, who convened a

meeting for the purpose of discussing the matters raised by Mr. Donald.

The meeting was held in Vancouver on December 2, 1978, and was attended

by McDiarmid, Vogel, Regional Crown Counsel Filmer and Mr. Donald. At

that meeting the case of Andrew Rigg was discussed, and the matters

alleging to John Farris, to which I will refer in a moment. The purpose

and results of that meeting were set out by Mr. Donald in a letter to

Attorney-General Gardom dated December 5, 1978, a copy of which I

propose to table at the conclusion of this statement.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the CBC telecast made very much of a

personal and confidential letter from Mr. Donald to the

Attorney-General, dated November 15, 1978. We believe we know the

source of that letter. I should say that some people may consider it

glamorous to obtain personal communications and to make them available

to others; I do not share that point of view.

It is unfortunate perhaps that the CBC couldn't have obtained a copy of the

letter which I am about to read: "Private and confidential." It's

addressed to the Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Q.C., Attorney-General, on December 5,

"Dear Sir:

"Re: Deputy Attorney-General Richard H. Vogel

"I sent you a letter, dated November 15, 1978, asking for

an investigation into the actions taken by Mr. Vogel in connection with the

case of Regina v. Andrew Michael Rigg, and also into certain actions taken by

the Deputy Attorney-General in connection with a case that involved John Farris.

"On the evening of November 21,1978, you advised me

that you had asked Neil McDiarmid to look into these matters, and you

asked me to give him my cooperation. At Mr. McDiarmid's request, I met

with Mr. Vogel, Mr. Filmer and Mr. McDiarmid at Mr. Filmer's office at

Pacific Centre on Saturday, December 2, 1978. There was a frank

discussion about the operation of the ministry as it related to the

four of us in that room.

"Mr. Vogel indicated that he had made an error in

judgment in the handling of the Rigg case, possibly due in part to the

fact that the Rigg case came up not too long after he had been

appointed Deputy Attorney-General. It appears that, having taken the

view as early as 1977 that the prosecution should not proceed, he held

this view until the appeal was finally stopped in May of 1978.

"Mr. Vogel advises that if the Rigg case came up today

he would not have interfered, but would have let the case run its

course. I take this as an assurance that the Rigg case was a one-time

error in judgment, and that this type of action on the part of the

Deputy Attorney-General will not occur again. In these circumstances, I

am satisfied that the Rigg matter is at an end, and that my complaint

in connection with the Rigg case has been satisfactorily answered.

"With regard to the matter involving John Farris, Mr.

McDiarmid is to arrange a meeting to involve Chief Winterton, Deputy

Chief Dixon, Superintendent Herdman, Filmer, McDiarmid and myself. On

the basis of what Mr. Vogel told Mr. Filmer, McDiarmid and myself on

December 2, 1978, I expect that the matters raised in connection with

Farris will be resolved in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Vogel advises

that when the suggestion was put forward by the police that John Farris

would be a witness, he, Vogel, on determining the evidence for which

the police suggested that Farris should be called, gave a lawyer's

opinion that Farris should not be a witness in the case. The ensuing

discussion left the impression in the minds of the police that Mr.

Vogel was prepared to interfere with the role of Crown counsel handling

the case. Mr. Vogel states that it was not his intention to leave this

impression. I am hopeful that the issues in connection with Mr. Farris

will be resolved at the meeting, referred to above, with the police. I

will report to you further after that meeting."

At this juncture I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Deputy

Attorney-General, whoever he may be, is, in instances such as those

disclosed in the case of Andrew Rigg, clothed with the authority to

make such a decision and give direction to abandon an appeal. It is a

matter for his judgment, in any case where he concludes that there is

no useful purpose to be achieved by carrying on the appeal. It would be

otherwise if his decision were based on improper motives, but, as a

result of my review of this matter, I cannot find that his actions were

motivated or that he was influenced by improper considerations. Quite

to the contrary, my review satisfies me that his decision was based on

proper considerations.

[ Page 1559 ]

The accused had stood trial on a

summary conviction offence and been

acquitted by a judge who had found a reasonable doubt, which, in

accordance with the law, must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

There was not, in this case, any fundamental legal issue or principle

of law requiring clarification or reconsideration by an appellate

court. The incident giving rise to the charge had not resulted from a

motor vehicle accident or other moving offence. The accused was fully

cooperative with the police authorities, clearly recognized the

seriousness of his conduct and was contrite.

Taking all these elements into consideration, it cannot be

maintained that the interests of justice were not properly served in

this case. After all, justice is what the system is all about. The

citizen who finds himself involved in matters such as this is entitled

to have matters directly affecting him decided upon the factors of his

case, not upon the desire of the Crown to remedy what it considers to

be a weakness in the system.

Case three. In this case, which the CBC reporter referred to as the

Wendy King–Farris case, references are made to information coming to

the attention of senior prosecutor Bruce Donald that Deputy

Attorney-General Vogel had advised officers of the Vancouver City

Police Department that he would prevent Mr. Farris from being called as

a witness in a case in respect of which charges had not then been laid.

The full details of the information coming to the attention of Mr.

Donald were contained in his letter of November 15, 1978, addressed to

Attorney-General Gardom. This letter, to which I referred a moment ago,

has already been published in daily newspapers circulating in British

Columbia, with the exception of two sentences which were deleted by

reason of the privacy provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. I

propose, at the conclusion of this statement, to table a copy of that

letter with the same two sentences expunged for the same reason.

The subject matter of this case, and Mr. Donald's concerns relating

to the information which had been passed to him, were the subject of a

discussion at a meeting held in Vancouver attended by: Deputy

Attorney-General Vogel, Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid,

Regional Crown Counsel Filmer, Senior Prosecutor Donald, Chief

Constable Donald Winterton, Deputy Chief Dixon and Superintendent

Herdman — the last three persons being senior officers in the Vancouver

City Police Department. Following that meeting Mr. Donald again wrote

to Attorney-General Gardom, under date of December 21, 1978, and I

propose to table a copy of that letter at the conclusion of this

statement.

That letter is addressed to Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Q.C., Attorney-General, December 21, 1978, and it reads as follows:

"Private and Confidential

"Re: Deputy Attorney-General Richard H. Vogel

"Further to my letters of November 15, 1978, and

December 5, 1978, concerning the Rigg case and the case which involves

John Farris, I am pleased to advise that on December 12, 1978, a

meeting was held concerning the problem which I raised in connection

with the case involving John Farris. Mr. Vogel, Mr. McDiarmid, Mr.

Filmer and I attended from our ministry, and Chief Constable Winterton,

Deputy Chief Dixon and Superintendent Herdman attended from the

Vancouver police department. "I am now satisfied that it is now

understood by all concerned that Mr. Vogel was giving his lawyer's

opinion, based on the information that had been given to him by

Superintendent Herdman, when he indicated he would prevent the calling

of John Farris as a witness in the Wendy King case.

"The timing of Mr. Vogel's remarks was probably

unfortunate in that the Crown counsel, who reviewed all of the evidence

in connection with the Wendy King case, came to the conclusion several

days after Mr. Vogel had made his remarks that Farris should not be

called as a witness since there was no indication that Mr. Farris would

advance the Crown's case in any way.

"The Crown counsel, who reviewed all of the evidence,

was never contacted by Mr. Vogel, and he was not informed of Mr.

Vogel's remarks about not calling John Farris as a witness until after

he had made his own determination as to the value of calling John

Farris as a witness.

"The police are now fully informed of the sequence of

events and do not, I believe, think there was or will be any

interference by the Deputy Attorney General in connection with the

prosecution of the Wendy King case. While there may still be some

questions in the minds of some police in the ranks as to what happened

with respect to whether or not John Farris should be called as a

witness in the Wendy King case — since some are of the view that he

should be called as a witness, even though it is not the police role to

decide who will and will not be witnesses — I am completely satisfied,

as a result of the December 12, 1978, meeting that as far as I am

concerned, the matter that I raised with you in my letter of November

15, 1978, with respect to John Farris, is satisfactorily closed.

"Yours very truly, R. Bruce Donald."

Following my interview with Chief Winterton and Superintendent

Herdman in the past week — the latter of whom was present at the

meeting of November 1, 1978, referred to in Donald's letter of November

15 — I was informed by Superintendent Herdman that he believed Mr.

Vogel to be an honourable man, and that in this matter, "he had no

intention to interfere with the administration of justice." My review

into this matter has disclosed that in the preparation of the Crown

case against Wendy King, Mr. Farris was served with a subpoena.

Therefore there was, in fact, no interference by Deputy

Attorney-General Vogel in the selection and summonsing of witnesses for

the Crown in that case.

With reference to Mr. Donald's letter of November 15, 1978, and the

action taken by the Hon. Garde Gardom with respect thereto, I will also

table a memorandum from Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid

dated February 26, 1979. Mr. Speaker, it's very brief. It's addressed

to Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Attorney-General, and is marked "private and

confidential." He states: "I have had an opportunity of reading all the

correspondence attached hereto, particularly Mr. Donald's letters of

December 5 and December 21. I can assure you that those letters

accurately reflect the conversations held on both occasions. I can also

add in connection with those matters, which you delegated to me to

investigate, that they have been satisfactorily completed, and the

parties involved satisfied with the results."

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the allegations, inferences and innuendos in the CBC evening news telecast of

[ Page 1560 ]

March 6, 1980, constitute a direct but unwarranted

attack upon the integrity of Deputy Attorney-General Vogel and upon the

professional skills, the sense of responsibility, the dedication and

the enthusiasm which he has brought to the discharge of the functions

of his office. Indirectly, those same allegations, inferences and

innuendos constitute a similar attack upon the integrity, performance

and responsibility of former Crown Counsel Brian Nattress, Regional

Crown Counsel Brian Weddell, Crown Counsel Robert Moffat, and those

members of the judiciary and other senior officials of the Ministry of

the Attorney-General who, in the performance of their duties, have been

involved in these cases. As serious as these matters are for the

persons directly and indirectly involved, and I in no way diminish the

significance of this, there is, in my view, a much more serious

consequence flowing from this news broadcast — namely, the apprehension

which may be created in the minds of those who saw that telecast, read

the material contained therein or heard the matter second-hand

concerning the credibility of the criminal justice system and the

standard of performance of those who are charged with its

administration.

Mr. Speaker, any report which leads to a diminution of respect for

the law or the administration of the law and which does not accurately

and fairly deal with the subject can neither be accepted nor condoned.

I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that being made aware of the impending

broadcast by the CBC but being unaware of its contents, I twice

requested the opportunity of viewing the material in advance of the

broadcasts. This request was not made for the purpose of preventing the

CBC from broadcasting any material which it considered proper, but

rather to ensure that matters touching upon the justice system were

accurate. Both of these requests were denied.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I must advise you that on February 5,

1980, I received a telephone call from Chief Donald Winterton of the

Vancouver police department during which he advised me that Mr. Chris

Bird of the CBC had that day communicated with him expressing the

desire to have Chief Winterton view a script, which Chief Winterton

understood related to Deputy Attorney-General Vogel. I was informed by

Chief Winterton that he declined the request, but in so doing advised

Mr. Bird that he would be obliged to inform me of the request.

During the course of debate in this House on Friday, March 7, 1980,

the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) made reference to this

conversation. Because of the nature of those comments, I obtained a

report on the matter from Chief Winterton I will read. It is dated

March 11, 1980. It is strictly confidential, but I have obtained the

consent, Mr. Speaker, of Chief Winterton to produce this statement

today, as I have with the other confidential letters which I've read to

this House.

"The following notes are prepared to the best of my recollection and deal with a series of incidents which occurred on 80.2.05.

"At approximately 11:30 a.m., Superintendent Tom

Herdman advised me that he had received a telephone call from Chris

Bird of the CBC, requesting an interview regarding the Deputy

Attorney-General, Mr. Vogel. Superintendent Herdman spoke to me and

advised me that in his view such an interview would be totally

improper. I concurred with Superintendent Herdman and suggested to him

that he should have Mr. Bird phone me, Winterton.

"At approximately 12:07 Chris Bird phoned me. Present

in my office at the time I received the call was Superintendent

Herdman. Mr. Bird advised me that he would like to meet with me and

discuss a very confidential matter. I asked Mr. Bird the nature of the

confidential matter and he indicated that he would rather discuss it

with me directly. I advised him that I had spoken to Superintendent

Herdman, and if the matter was with respect to the Deputy Attorney

General Dick Vogel, I did not wish to discuss the matter with him. I

pointed out that any such conversation, in my view, would be quite

improper. I further pointed out to Mr. Bird that if he was in

possession of any information of wrongdoing by Mr. Vogel, then he,

Bird, should present this information directly to the Attorney-General.

"Mr. Bird advised me that he was not seeking official

comment, that he was seeking some sort of guidance. He indicated that

he wanted me to view a script and wished me to comment, if I would. I

once again advised Mr. Bird that this would be totally inappropriate

for me, and that I could not comply with his request.

"I also advised Mr. Bird that by bringing this matter

to my attention, he placed me in the position where I was morally

obliged to report our conversation directly to the Attorney-General.

Mr. Bird said that was fine, because the Attorney-General would know

soon, anyway. I further advised that I would not discuss the matter

with the Deputy Attorney-General, but would deal directly with the

Attorney-General.

"At approximately 1:30 p.m." — on this same day, Mr.

Speaker — "as a result of my message, the Attorney-General, Mr. Allan

Williams, called me at my office. I advised the minister of the contact

of Superintendent Herdman and myself by Mr. Bird and of the position

that I had taken with respect to this request. l further pointed out to

the Attorney-General that I did not know what Mr. Bird wished to

discuss with me, but that I suspected it was the Wendy King case. The

Attorney-General concurred with the position I had taken and advised

that he would be quite prepared to see Mr. Bird if he had any

allegations of wrongdoing by the Deputy Attorney-General. The minister

also advised me that he was uncertain as to whether or not he would

inform Mr. Vogel of the discussion. He indicated that at the moment he

felt he would not. I advised Mr. Williams that I would contact Mr. Bird

and advise him of our conversation.

"At approximately 2 p.m. on that same day, I contacted

Mr. Bird by telephone and advised him that I had spoken with the

Attorney-General. I advised Mr. Bird that the Attorney-General's

position was that if he, Bird, had information with respect to

wrongdoing by the Deputy Attorney-General, he should present this

information to the Attorney General. I further advised Mr. Bird that if

he had any information with respect to improper investigation or

wrongdoing by the Vancouver police department, I would be most pleased

to meet with him and discuss this aspect. Mr. Bird assured me that he

had no concern with respect to impropriety by the Vancouver police

department."

This is signed "D.L. Winterton, Chief Constable."

[ Page 1561 ]

I wish you to know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bird did not accept the

advice of Chief Winterton and did not communicate to me any information

in his possession with respect to Deputy Attorney-General Vogel.

In view of all these matters and the seriousness which I have

ascribed to them, I wish to advise this House that I will provide a

copy of this statement to the federal minister having responsibility

for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and to the Canadian

Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, which is

responsible under the laws of Canada for granting licences to the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and others.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have today

terminated the leave of absence which I extended to Deputy

Attorney-General Vogel on March 7, 1980, and have requested him to

resume the powers and duties of his office.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a copy of the private and

confidential letter from Donald to Gardom, November 15, with two

sentences expunged, as I pointed out; the letters from Donald to

Gardom, December 5 and December 28, 1978; the memorandum from Assistant

Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid, dated February 26, 1979, also

addressed to the Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Attorney-General; and, finally,

the report, strictly confidential, from Chief D.L. Winterton of

Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Since the hon. the minister has referred to

these verbatim, and leave would not be required, it would be expected

that they would be filed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to have them tabled, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled correspondence.

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the official opposition, first of all

I would like to thank the Attorney-General for giving a thorough report

and for taking the necessary time to conduct the investigation — or the

review, as he has put it — and reporting quickly to the Legislature on

these very serious allegations.

Because of the complexity of the review that the Attorney-General

has reported to the House, the opposition takes the view that we would

like to go over the Attorney-General's statement very carefully,

together with the documents tabled in the House, some of which we have

not seen. We then will very likely be making a further statement on the

question.

We wish to leave this afternoon's discussion of the subject with the

clear understanding that the opposition is of the view that the

administration of justice in this province must be totally without

cloud or suspicion; it must be totally in the view of the public —

equality before the law — and any such serious allegations raised by

the press must be completely and openly investigated.

Although we appreciate the Attorney-General's efforts, we hasten to

point out that he is acting as an elected official and a Crown minister

in a very sensitive area in the administration of justice. We do not

have a public view of all of the witnesses interviewed, the full

statements that were given, whether they were under oath, whether other

witnesses involved in these matters were interviewed, and there are

many other unanswered questions. In no way do we wish to suggest that

the Attorney-General was not thorough, but it is our view that an open

and complete investigation into such matters must be undertaken for the

very reason that the Attorney General raised in his statement: the

public confidence in the administration of justice must be completely

above any suggestion of partisan politics or of interference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing orders provide only

for a statement and a reply, unless members are seeking the floor in

another matter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the opposition has

responded to the Attorney-General, so I feel the obligation to respond

as the government to the statement by the Attorney-General,

accentuating the unique position of the justice system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Mr. Premier, I'm not aware

of any vehicle by which I can provide this opportunity, but I will

review the matter immediately and see whether or not it is possible. If

it is, I will advise the House momentarily. May we have a short recess?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ask leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was leave required?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would ask, before you consider it, that leave be granted.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would point out the unique

position the Attorney-General is in in any government. Therefore I'm

responding for the government on the statement given by the

Attorney-General today — that very complete statement.

I say, on behalf of the government, that we accept the statement of

the hon. Attorney-General as an honourable member of this House, and we

accept his statement without question because of our considerable

admiration for his reputation as a member and his reputation as a

counsel before becoming a member. Mr. Speaker, we accept it because in

this instance and in others the system of justice must be clearly

protected and the public must have confidence.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Although my statement seems to bore the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), this is an area in which

partisan politics should not be played in dealing with a public servant

and the report of an hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put

those remarks on the record, because we recognize the very difficult

role the Attorney-General has had in conducting this review.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is one of the fine moments in this House

when we hear one of the members of the ministry exonerating and

upholding a high public official.

[ Page 1562 ]

In continuing with the debate that I adjourned last night, it almost

seems an anti-climax to say very much as the member for Dewdney, but at

the same time the process of parliament must continue. I must go on

with my debate and reply in support of the budget.

I would like first to bring to your attention the words of the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he referred to the myth of the

provincial debt. That member shouldn't use the word "myth," because he

should have remembered the words of his leader when he was Leader of

the Opposition in the previous government. He should have remembered

the words of that leader, who said that this government — our Social

Credit government — carried two sets of books. Some of you here will

remember that. We had two sets of books: one for the auditor and one

for the internal workings of government.

Now what happened is that when they became government in 1972, he

said: "I'll answer the question. I've found out that there are not two

sets of books. The books are correct and the books are there — not only

that, but I've found the treasury is full of money like they said

also." That's what the leader said. If they would only have remembered

those words! Yet with all that money, with all that consideration, with

all these things, they said they continued a government, but they

continued a government on the socialist way. They referred to the myth

of debts. There is no myth to $200 million ICBC and ferry debts. There

is no myth to a $100 million overrun. These in themselves are not the

issue. The issues are errors and the inability of socialists to run a

business.

MR. COCKE: George, did you ever get this book?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind the book.

By 1973, the impetus of the previous government was continuing, and

by 1974, as my chart showed yesterday, they are on the downhill slide.

MR. COCKE: Show us the chart again.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll show you the chart again. There it is.

You will see the impetus of the previous government. This is when the

socialists took over and the impetus continued.

They said: "Yes, there is a lot of money in the treasury. Sure,

spend it, boys. Let's get going." Saturday night rich and Monday

morning poor. And suddenly they hit the slide when they went into the

basement. The gross provincial product — right there — was 1.3 percent

in the basement. Further into debt.

Now when our government took over in 1976, right away we were out of the basement. Up and up and onward to where we are today!

HON. MR. McGEER: The China syndrome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I referred to the China syndrome

yesterday, because we have our member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

who said: "Who was in favour of nuclear power?" So I said he would

understand what this means — down in the basement, the China syndrome.

The main attack of the opposition, if there is an attack, said that

there is no provision for jobs. How could it be possible to make a

statement like that? You have just seen a short while ago $200 million

set aside by this government for building new homes, which was

oversubscribed almost in two days. This created jobs. It put the

impetus into the building industry and created hundreds of jobs and is

continuing to do so.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I will read today from the Vancouver Province — this

morning's lead report. It said: "Ironically, housing starts were up 208

percent in metro Vancouver in February to 1,529 from 496 in February of

1979, and up 44 percent in Victoria to 123 from 88." That was a result

of this infusion of $200 million into the economy. It said further:

"But this construction is way behind the demand for housing of all

types, a demand that will continue for some years, as more people flock

to the area as the economy continues to grow." That's British Columbia.

The outlook for British Columbia is bright. But it is a difficult

problem we have in British Columbia, because we've got to jump a 30

percent barrier every time we want to do any business in the United

States; we've got to do the same thing to sell our products there. Our

only hope is in trading with the Pacific Rim.

Ontario and Quebec have never paid their dues in Confederation.

They've taken everything from Canada and given nothing back, and that's

been exceedingly well shown in the way the government was treated in

the last federal election. I have an idea that the federal government

would like to be fair with the four western provinces — and this is not

government policy, by any means, I can assure you. But I would like to

see a free-trade area between the four western provinces so we could do

our business north and south; that's what I would like to see. Let

Ontario do its own business with itself if it wants to. Let them find

out what it feels like to have only themselves for customers for a

change. Let Quebec find out the same thing.

Let the maritime provinces and the four western provinces be free to

trade over the border. That's the answer. Let these other people in

central Canada find out what it is to be under the pressure of not

being able to trade. We can't ship our goods to Ontario, because the

freight rates are two and a half times greater than for them shipping

goods out here. It's a well-known fact that the west has not been

properly treated by the federal government. I'm glad our ministers are

having conferences on that matter. It's only because we're so rich in

many ways, especially in resources, that we're able to maintain our

standard of living. The west is coming into its own. It's time the east

took a stand and realized that we're here, and did not try to hold back

forever on the purse-strings of Canada.

I would like to read from the Minister of Finance's "Medium-Term

Economic Outlook and Fiscal Analysis," in which he said: "British

Columbia is highly dependent upon foreign trade, and could not escape

these forces in the international economy. Moreover, as a province in a

federal system, British Columbia can have very little influence on the

underlying structure of inflation and high interest rates." Therein

lies the problem. Our only hope is to remove these barriers and give us

a greater trading area north and south, the way the Lord made the

continent. Every time we want to trade with the rest of Canada we've

got to cross the Rocky Mountains. The continent wasn't made that way;

it was made north and south. Why do we have to cross the mountains

[ Page 1563 ]

every time we want to buy a TV? Why do we have to

cross the mountains if we want to do business? Why? Now it can be done.

The automobile industry has the auto trade pact; there is no duty on

automobiles. Automobiles in Canada and the United States are the same

price except for the difference in the dollar and the difference in

taxes; they're the same price on both sides of the border. Why can't

this be in all industries? Why? It's because central Canada will not

release their stranglehold on the economy. They want to build it all

there. What does that do to central Canada? It makes them lazy. Nothing

will create a lazy manufacturing concern more than to give them a 22

percent to 30 percent tariff just for their benefit. And we've got to

cross that tariff every time we want to do business. I think that is

grossly unfair.

Furthermore, I wish to continue reading the statement from the hon.

Minister of Finance: "Notwithstanding the vulnerability of British

Columbia to the sluggish conditions in the international economy since

1975, the province has fared relatively well." That's because we have

good management; that's the reason we have fared well. We had the same

problems during the socialist regime of 1972-75. How did we fare? We

landed in the basement, as the chart shows. British Columbia will not

succeed unless it is under good management, with a proper private

enterprise government and economy. I hope for the sake of the people,

for our families and for the sake of British Columbia that the

socialists never again take over this province's business and economy,

because when they do, we'll hit the skids again. They had the

opportunity with the coffers full, with everything "go." They descended

into the basement within three years when every major union was on

strike, and they had to call this parliament back to put people back to

work. The British Columbia Railway was practically inoperative for

three years. What happened when we got back into government? For the

first time the railway ran on time. For the first time in those three

years it became a reliable carrier of goods.

I hope the socialist era in British Columbia is finished; it should

be finished. They're not bad people. Don't misunderstand me — they're

all good friends, but they're impossible business people. They're great

theorists, great idea people, but they couldn't put the nuts and bolts

together. That's the problem. That has been proven on many occasions,

and it can't be proven more than on my chart I have here, between the

years 1972 and 1975, conclusive proof that it is important and

imperative that if British Columbia and Canada are to succeed,

socialism must be put behind us. There's a great place for them in

opposition. I approve of that.

What I would like to say is that the main thrust of what our hon.

friends are saying to us is that our budget did not create jobs. Well

now, that's a very trite thing to say. How wrong can it be? I'm not

going to read this, but if you were to read the 1980 budget highlights

— they're in every budget book, on both sides — it will tell you that

almost every item is for the creation of jobs. British Columbia is

being raised to a new plateau where it will become more viable and

stronger. In the next budget you'll see the change in taxation, because

from then on the impetus of our present budget will keep going up and

we'll be able to have funds coming in to reduce taxation. But we must

reach a new plateau. We can't stand still — not this government, not

this policy.

I say to you — and I thank you for listening to my opinions on the budget — I approve of the budget and I support the budget.

Now I would like to say a thing or two about my own constituency of

Dewdney. Here is something which portrays what is happening to British

Columbia. In the city of Mission, a town in the Fraser Valley 45 miles

east of Vancouver, a lovely place, a new factory is being built by

Genstar, employing over 200 people, showing the confidence of the

manufacturer — of industry — to go out there, out beyond Vancouver, and

put a multimillion dollar factory in the city of Mission.

In Coquitlam, just west of my constituency, 2,000 acres were put

aside for industry. Within two years, when the land was filled, every

bit of it has been taken up. Industry is moving into British Columbia

from all over the world. This has come because we have power, markets

and management, because business has confidence in the Social Credit

government.

In the municipality of Maple Ridge we have another 375-acre park

that is just being built today. I suggest that within two years that

will be full of industry because of the help of our Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). With the

assistance of government ministries, we are able to find people that

want to locate outside the city of Vancouver and give jobs where the

people live, so people will not have to travel back and forth to the

city for all their work. They will have a place in the towns where they

live.

It's happening in Langley; it's happening in Surrey. There's a very

great example in Surrey. The Fraser Valley is building up, as is the

area east and north of Hope. Everywhere industry is taking hold, and

that's because of this government and this budget, because of the

confidence of the public in the administration of their business.

I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser), especially, for his help to me in almost every instance.

He hasn't announced it quite yet, but I understand he's going to

announce the finishing of a four-lane highway that was started some

years ago. I've been told he's almost ready to say it, but not quite,

so I'll wait a day or two. I want to thank him for the completion....

During the time I was previously an MLA, a bridge was built in Mission.

It crossed the river in Mission — a fine bridge, it had beautiful

approaches. But then the socialists took over again. What do you think

happened? The approaches were never finished. They stopped dead. We had

a beautiful bridge, and no approaches.

I remember at the opening of the bridge how we begged. I was asked

to speak. I was no longer the member; I was sitting in the audience. I

said that I hoped that the hon. Premier of that day would be so kind as

to complete this bridge for the people of Dewdney, because the bridge

was built but needed the approaches. All he did was shake his head — no

way. And did he mean it? He certainly did. He never touched a thing.

Nothing. Then we got back in office. Yes, it took us three years to get

organized, but now the southern approach is finished and the northern

approach is being done. That's the way this government works —

industry, bridges and roads.

MR. BRUMMET: Do you know they're asking for blacktop in their ridings too?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I'm glad they're asking, and I hope they will get it.

There is one thing about that minister. He doesn't care whose riding it is in. He deals with the people of British

[ Page 1564 ]

Columbia. I've noticed that — with the people of British Columbia,

not in whose riding it is. No way. And that's the way it should be.

That's the way this government is: fairness to all and favour to none.

It's a very simple motive, but it's a fact.

For these things, and for the help I'm getting from all

ministries.... But I do need more. We need more in Dewdney. Suddenly

the valley has become visible to the government. It has not been for

many years. I just hope that as time goes on they will consider and

give more attention to getting the ministry departments and the

industries out of the metropolitan area. There is too much attention to

the metropolitan area, too much attention to Vancouver.

When the ombudsman put in his office, I said: "Mr. Ombudsman, that

office shouldn't be in Vancouver; it should be out in the valley —

Coquitlam, Surrey, anywhere except Vancouver. I don't care where it is,

but put it outside the city — Burnaby." But where did it go? Mind you,

he can do as he pleases. Maple Ridge would have been excellent. But I

didn't think they'd go that far out; that's a little bit too far. But

that's where the new offices should go: outside the city of Vancouver.

Vancouver doesn't need them, but the country does. We want to create

employment; that is our policy. That is the way I would like to see it,

and I hope it will become government policy.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for hearing me. I

know it's been very disjointed, but I want to say to you how much I

appreciate what is going on in British Columbia. I think everyone

should appreciate the forward look of the province of British Columbia

— forward and upward, not only in Vancouver but in the whole of the

province and the north, where just three years ago there wasn't one

single oil drilling rig. Within a year there were over 200. Now there

are over 400 drilling rigs looking for oil. That's because it's fair

and because they have confidence. Under the socialist regime would you

get anybody to go up there and look for oil? Not a chance, because they

said: "You find the oil, we want it." Did miners go out and mine? No

way, because they said to them: "Listen, you find the mine, and we'll

take it." Well, who's going out? Nobody. It takes a private enterprise

system to create jobs and enthusiasm. That's what we have and what they

haven't got.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, that it's up to this country never to

forget those three years. Remember the government that built up British

Columbia — before and now — but the three deadly years under the heavy

hand of socialism. This budget erased all that. Let them be our

friends, let them be there, but let the people know and keep them

there, because the deadly hand of socialism will kill whatever lives,

industrially, in this province.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, how much I appreciate the opportunity of

having had these few words. I'll rise again at some later date to speak

further on similar subjects.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Dewdney, who

has just taken his seat, I'm certainly very disappointed that I'm not

going to be able to support the budget. I'm really disappointed about

this, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that surely by now the government

would have had some understanding of the needs of the people of this

province, and that with that magnificent surplus which they claim they

have they would have tried to meet some of these needs. Yet we find

that once again they bring down a budget which fails to address itself

to the need for employment, protection against the high interest rates

that people are facing in this province and the delivery of services to

people that is so necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by talking about the ways in which

the budget has failed the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, because

indeed it has. As you know, because of its geographical location

Burnaby runs the risk of being a transportation corridor for all of the

lower mainland. I'm glad that the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is here, because transportation and traffic

are certainly one of the major issues facing the municipality of

Burnaby at this time, in particular the eastern end of that

municipality, the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency.

Going anywhere in the lower mainland, to New Westminster, passing

through to Surrey, just about wherever you're going or coming from, you

have to go through Burnaby. Burnaby has the misfortune of having five

major throughways running through that riding. If one is not careful in

terms of planning, Mr. Speaker, what Burnaby could end up being, as I

said before, is a transportation corridor. It could be a place not fit

for human beings to live in if one were not careful in terms of

planning. Traffic congestion is a major problem. There are certain

times of the day when it's not possible to move along Canada Way,

Lougheed or Kingsway, any of these major arterial routes that pass

through that particular constituency. So the protection of the

neighbourhoods, homes and communities has got to be one of the major

commitments that any person who represents the riding of

Burnaby-Edmonds has to have.

That's why I was so disappointed when the Minister of Transportation

and Highways.... I should say the Premier, because he took over the

responsibility for making the announcement, which I must say he did to

save your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson), because of your vain

and idle threat to resign unless the bridge was built. He sacrificed

Burnaby-Edmonds to save you. I'm not quite sure whether that was a fair

trade or not. I like you, but despite that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder

whether the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Highways

took into consideration the kind of impact that bridge is going to have

on the quality of life and on the lives of people living in the eastern

end of the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency-the eastern end of the Burnaby

municipality.

There already is a problem of traffic — traffic coming from

everywhere and going everywhere. The municipality is trying to deal

with this. The new mayor, Mr. Mercier, and some of his councillors came

over and met with the Minister of Transportation and Highways and

placed before them the regional plan, the plan that would somehow try

to relieve the congestion in the residential areas of Burnaby. They

explained to the minister the need that Burnaby had for some kind of

financial commitment from him. I'm sure they went away convinced that

the minister understood and had some kind of compassion for those

people who chose to make Burnaby their home — who chose to raise their

families there, send their children to school there, and grow old

there. When they came to meet with the minister they pointed out to him

that their priority was to get traffic out of the residential area, not

for more traffic to be poured into the residential area as a result of

relieving the traffic congestion in other areas.

This is a difficult task. Everyone knows you cannot look at one area

in isolation. You cannot look just at Burnaby, or at Delta, or at

Richmond, or at Surrey; in fact, there has to be some kind of regional

approach to the moving of auto-

[ Page 1565 ]

mobiles. That's what we're moving — we're moving

automobiles. We're still waiting for the government to make some kind

of commitment to the moving of people. Everything that has been done so

far has served to increase automobile traffic and to increase the

moving of automobiles. That's why the GVRD, in its infinite wisdom,

designed an overall transportation plan for the lower mainland region.

Yet we hear from them that they were not consulted about the decision

to build the Annacis crossing, or even its location. That doesn't make

any sense when you think that those kinds of decisions impact on the

people who live in that area.

If there is a coming-together of all of these regions under an

umbrella such as the GVRD, which travelled through the various

municipalities holding public meetings — I certainly attended a number

of them when they met in East Burnaby.... They said to the people

living in East Burnaby: "Tell us what you would like to see a

transportation plan do for this particular community in which you

live." They accepted that input in good faith. They proceeded to design

a plan which all of the municipalities covered by the GVRD accepted. As

I said, the mayor of Burnaby and some of his councillors came to see

the minister responsible and placed their proposition in front of him

and asked for some financial commitment from the government so that

this plan could be put into place. Imagine their surprise, therefore,

when they received an invitation to breakfast, which I think was at

7:30 in the morning. It was a good time to have breakfast, but

nonetheless they were presented with a fait accompli. They were told:

"Here is the crossing. This is where it's going to be located."

Although I am going to raise this issue again under his estimates, I

know that the minister is going to be speaking as soon as I take my

seat. I hope that he will use the opportunity to tell us what kind of

input he had from the people living in the area which is going to be

affected by this crossing. Did you speak to anybody in the East Burnaby

area? Did you speak to anybody who would be living along the new Marine

Way? Did you speak to any of the people who are presently living there

now as the traffic comes off that crossing and pours into the eastern

end of Burnaby? Did you find out from them what their feeling was about

what this bridge is going to do to their particular community?

I want to go on record as saying that I have great sympathy for the

dilemma faced by commuters coming from Delta and Surrey and other

areas, but I don't think that the moving of cars should be the

priority, first of all. Secondly, I don't think that shifting the

traffic congestion problem from one area to another is going to be the

solution. I don't think that you save one community by destroying

another. I don't think you should sacrifice one community to another

community. That is not the solution, and if, in fact, that has to be

the solution, then at least there should have been the courtesy of

sitting down and speaking to the people who live in the area which is

about to be destroyed. At least sit down and have some kind of

consultation with the GVRD.

They maintain, Mr. Speaker, that they were not consulted. Maybe

their statement is not correct, I don't know, but they've issued their

own press release in which they say that there should have been

consultation and there wasn't. This was issued on March 12, 1980. They

said: "It would have been helpful if the provincial government had

consulted with the Greater Vancouver Regional District before making an

announcement about plans to build a crossing of the Fraser River at

Annacis Island." This comes from the directors and the board chairman,

Mr. Emmott. It goes on to say that "several of the directors knew that

the possibility of a crossing was in the offing for many years, but

they do not think that the government's announcement should have come

as a surprise." I don't know if it would have made it any easier, quite

frankly, to notify them first, but it is possible that the decision

made by the government would have been modified if they'd had the

courtesy to at least consult with the GVRD — and they're duly elected

people, too, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, what the new Marine Way in Burnaby does — the one

which is going to be picking up most of this traffic — is to cut

through an area that's pretty much used in terms of housing development

for medium- and low-cost housing — the kind of housing that is really

desperately needed at this particular time. It also is going to go

through some of the last really good land left in Burnaby for growing

food on. I know that when most people think about Burnaby they don't

think about it in terms of arable land or in terms of farmland, but in

fact, down on the flats there's some of the richest and most productive

land — which is still being used in terms of growing vegetables and

food which help to feed people in Vancouver and British Columbia. And

that land is going to be sacrificed.

Maybe we are sentimental on this side of the House, caring about arable land; maybe we are bleeding hearts.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And maybe we are practical. I don't know who said

it, but someone once mentioned that they weren't making it any more,

and that's probably one of the reasons why we place such a very high

value on it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Class 1 land, that's what it is. And the new

Marine Way is going to be cutting straight through that, Mr. Speaker,

and that's good land for food, and land that's still within the price

range of some people, in terms of building medium-priced housing, and

even low-cost housing — although in today's market it's difficult to

talk about low-cost housing, because we are told that no such thing

exists.

The other thing, of course — which I think is the most cruel thing

of all — is that this bridge is not going to be of any benefit to the

people of Burnaby. It's not being put there for them. Once again,

Burnaby is going to be used as a transportation corridor for people

living elsewhere. I'm going to be raising this issue again and again

and again, and I'm not doing it now, because I don't want to be tedious

and repetitious, and there are other things that I want to say. But I

think that the minister responsible should know that he has done a

great disservice to the people of Burnaby by not consulting, first of

all, with the GVRD, by not talking to the people who live in the area,

and by destroying that very valuable land in terms of its ability to

grow food, and in terms of housing, which is such a crucial need.

It wasn't necessary, because the GVRD and most of the people living

in the lower mainland have said to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser): "What we want at this time is a commitment

to public transit. What we need is to move people rather than

automobiles." It is ludicrous in this day and age, with the rising cost

of energy, for the government to bring in a budget which gives you a 2

[ Page 1566 ]

percent discount on your sales tax if you buy a car

that gives you good gas mileage, and then turn around and cater to the

excessive use of the automobile by continually building more and more

and more facilities for the automobile rather than for moving people.

This decision to introduce at this time that crossing — rumour,

incidentally, has it that it will never be built, and this is one time

we hope rumour is right — sets back the commitment to public transit.

That is what is so tragic about this. The kind of funding that should

be available to upgrade the public transit system as it now exists, and

to place seed money into the development of rapid transit, is being

detoured into building another crossing for the benefit of the

automobile, which is going to destroy the quality of life of people

living in a specific neighbourhood.

It's short-sighted and it's stupid. I withdraw the word "stupid"

because I know it's unparliamentary, but it's short-sighted. I'm not

saying the minister is stupid, but I think the decision to continually

cater to the needs of the automobile is not a very smart decision. It's

not a very smart decision, and it takes a lot of courage on the part of

a government to recognize that and to do something about it. This

government had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in this budget to make a

commitment to rapid transit and to upgrading the public transportation

system — which they have done a lot to degrade, quite frankly.

Certainly that is true in the Burnaby area. Instead of that, once again

the commitment has been made to sacrifice people to the automobile,

which is very short-sighted on the part of this government.

As I said before, I am leaving this whole question of

transportation, traffic corridors and the destruction of local bus

systems and commuter Fastbus systems in the riding. I am leaving it now

because I am going to be dealing with it again, of course, when the

minister's estimates are up.

The second issue, Mr. Speaker, of really major concern in the area

of Burnaby is housing; it's no different, really, than anywhere else in

British Columbia. I noticed that today's Province

mentioned that Vancouver is the worst in all of Canada in terms of its

lack of accommodation, its lack of housing for people. It is a very

major problem in the Burnaby constituency — a lack of housing that

impacts on some very special people. I want to break it down into

different categories.

Seniors' housing. I notice that the funding from the lottery has

been going toward developing seniors' housing in Kelowna and Penticton.

I certainly want to congratulate the government on that, but there is

still a very serious need for seniors' housing in the Burnaby area. We

have a couple of long-term care homes. You know the history of the New

Vista Society; it was started by Ernie Winch, who started himself, with

his own hands, building that home. It was always designed to be for

senior citizens so that people, as they grow old, would have a place

where they could live in dignity. There is a waiting list for that

home. It is a massive complex and there still is a waiting list.

The Canada Way Care Centre has a waiting list of over eight months

to get into that home. The New Vista care home has a waiting list of

over two years. We are talking about housing for seniors at this time.

There is a waiting list in every one of the houses or apartment

complexes, whether it's at 7676 Kingsway, the Doug Drummond Home;

wherever you look there is a waiting list. All of the housing which is

available for senior citizens in the riding is full and there is a

waiting list.

Surely the budget could have addressed itself, surely the budget

could have made some kind of commitment — a massive financial

commitment — to the building of seniors' housing right across the

province, because I'm sure that Burnaby is no different than anywhere

else. This incredible need for housing, which we could see coming,

which we've spoken about in this House for years.... You know, as soon

as this government took over, Mr. Speaker, at the end of 1975 and the

beginning of 1976, they immediately dried up all of the funds, all of

the money, in terms of building houses and the government itself

getting into the business of supplying housing. So they've had five

years for the situation to go from bad to worse, until now we've

reached a crisis situation in terms of housing people, and certainly in

terms of housing seniors.

Dania Home, Normanna Rest Home — all of them have waiting lists, in

many instances of over a year, to get into this housing. What's

happening to the seniors in the meantime? Really, that is the concern

that we have. With this real shortage of housing and the ceiling being

lifted off rents — rent control being lifted in a number of areas or

being rendered useless because inflation has pushed rentals way beyond

the point where they're any longer covered by rent control — what is

going to happen to the senior citizens who need housing?

Burnaby has a very large component of seniors living there. For many

years it used to be one community where it was possible to get

reasonable housing and reasonable transportation; it was a reasonable

community in which to live. Now we're finding that that is changing.

The people who are being hurt by that, of course, are people on fixed

incomes. Later I want to talk more about seniors and what is going to

happen to them when the Urban Transit Authority takes over the buses on

April 1. Maybe I should just interject now, and say that what we're

finding is about to happen to Burnaby is the same dilemma which

occurred in Victoria in terms of travelling at a reduced rate on the

buses. The senior citizens are going to lose the bus passes they have

been using once the Urban Transit Authority takes over the bus system,

because the Urban Transit Authority says it's not in the business of

welfare. Of course, the bus passes were issued by Human Resources. The

Burnaby council has approached the government, because something has to

be done about this.

What's going to happen to the senior citizens when they lose their

bus passes and when there is no affordable housing for them? They

continue to be on a fixed income. The cost of food continues to go up;

they have no control over that. The cost of hydro continues to

increase; they have no control over that. The cost of clothing

continues to inflate; they have no control over that. What's going to

happen to seniors? The budget did not address itself to that dilemma.

They were totally ignored by this budget. It failed them completely.

The policies of the government are penalizing them for growing old and

for being on fixed incomes in this province. They were not relieved one

iota by this budget. The government goes around and brags about the

size of its budget, but just stop a senior citizen in the Burnaby

constituency and ask: "What benefit has this budget been to you in

terms of your housing, your shelter costs, in terms of what is going to

happen to you after April 1 when you lose your bus pass and in terms of

how it protects you against the inflated cost of food and clothing?

What protection has it given you in terms of the increases on your

taxes if you live in your own home, and on a mortgage if you have one

which needs to be

[ Page 1567 ]

renewed?" None of these things were addressed by this budget.

It is just not possible to support a budget which fails people who,

through their labour to a large extent, made it possible for this

province to be as wealthy as it is today. If we're going to have to

punish somebody, it doesn't make sense to punish the seniors. I think

we owe them something. I'm very disappointed that this budget has not

at least tried to ensure that they have dignity in terms of their need

for shelter, food, clothing and transportation, and that this budget

has failed them so miserably.

The budget has also failed the younger people, the students. The

president of Simon Fraser University had to make an appeal to the

government. There is no housing in Burnaby — not just for the seniors,

as I said before, but there's no housing for the nearly 3,000 students

of Simon Fraser who require off-campus housing each semester. Dr.

Peterson appealed to the government to get into the business of

building some housing. I'm sure he wasn't asking for 3,000 units, but

he was asking for a commitment to the building of some housing to meet

the crunch. Surely a number of the Simon Fraser students — I hesitate

to say most — want to live within a reasonable distance of that

university. The university is right smack in North Burnaby, but the

students live throughout Burnaby.

There is no commitment for housing for seniors; there is no

commitment for housing for students. When the president made his appeal

he asked that we look at.... He urged Premier Bill Bennett to review

the policy that denies provincial funds for low-cost student housing.

There was not a mention in the budget that the Premier was even

slightly aware that the president of Simon Fraser had placed this

appeal in front of him, not the slightest indication that the Premier

heard, that he knew and understood that there was a crisis situation in

terms of housing for young people attending university — certainly not

from the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the third group that I want to talk about are the

people on welfare, many of whom live in the Burnaby area. They're

really in a dilemma. Because of the shortage of housing accommodation,

landlords in the Burnaby area have now decided that they do not want to

rent accommodation to people on welfare. In one case in particular, a

single-parent mother brought to my attention that she had actually been

accepted by an apartment manager, to move into an apartment complex

known as Sylvan Garden Apartments, and when the manager found that she

was a welfare recipient, he informed her that it was not possible for

him to honour his acceptance of her and that she could not have the

apartment, because it was the policy of the owners of that complex of

apartments not to rent to welfare recipients.

This woman decided that that was

an act of discrimination, that she

was being discriminated against because she was poor, because she was

on welfare. So she took the matter to the Human Rights Commission, and

the Human Rights Commission informed her that there's no law in this

province against discriminating against people because they're poor.

It's perfectly legal in this province to discriminate against a person

because he's poor. It's not covered by the Code. She didn't believe

this, and since I am the representative for her riding, she came to my

office and placed this case in front of me. I know the Code and I read

it through again, and sure enough there is no law in this province

against discriminating against a person because he's poor. And there is

absolutely nothing that the Human Rights Commission could do about this.

I contacted the owner of the apartment complex, and he repeated

that, indeed, he did not rent his apartments to welfare recipients, and

he gave a number of reasons. I pointed out to him that these reasons

could apply to anyone, that they were not peculiar to welfare

recipients. He agreed, but said that in fact, when he had tried to get

some kind of satisfaction from them, he was referred to the Human

Resources office in the area, and the social worker would usually say

there was absolutely nothing that they could do. He was talking about

things like leaving without paying the last month's rent, or damage

deposits and that kind of thing — which they would not leave with him.

So I contacted the Human Resources office and met with the director

of the office and some of the workers there. And, sure enough, it is

the policy of the department. Not only does it not cover moving costs

now that it has cut out its special needs funding, but it does not

cover damage deposits — it will not pay in the event of the place

needing to be cleaned up after the person leaves, or whatever. The

criticisms of the landlord were not that the recipients of welfare left

his property in bad shape; his criticism was that when he approached

the Ministry of Human Resources to do something about it, they said:

"Tough beans."

I approached the landlord again and asked him to have a meeting with

the social workers, and suggested to him that maybe their combined

forces brought to bear on the Ministry of Human Resources would bring

about some change in policy, so that this would be considered as being

eligible for a crisis grant-because the only way you can get any

additional funding out of Human Resources is if your life is in danger

— there could be some way that it could be constituted that this should

be eligible for a crisis grant. Unfortunately the landlord, Mr. Popoff,

said that he would be willing to meet with the workers, and then at the

last minute he cancelled this meeting. But he's not the only landlord

in the area.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I don't know. I think that when the Ministry

of Human Resources is failing to discharge its responsibility to the

people in receipt of welfare, I don't know if I would put all of the

blame on the landlord — some, maybe, but not all of it.

But certainly the budget which was brought down by this government,

bragging of surpluses, could have taken into account the crisis in

housing. And if, in order to help people in our community get housing

who are vulnerable by virtue of the fact that they are poor, some

additional funds could have been added to the budget of the Ministry of

Human Resources or whatever, that should have been done. As it is, no

such thing happened.

The other issue in terms of housing is that there is no housing for

people with children. Landlords are quite open about that: they do not

rent to people with children. In some instances they say "children or

pets," putting them both in the same category. You're not going to be

able to force landlords to change without making this a human rights

issue, which this government is obviously not prepared to do. But

surely some kind of massive financial commitment should have been made

in this budget to the creation of housing. It should have been a

priority area in this budget, and it wasn't there. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, it's just not going to be possible for me to support this

budget.

[ Page 1568 ]

The third area of concern

in the riding is the government's policy to continually shift the cost

of education off the provincial government and onto the local

homeowners. I know that the Minister of Education is not in the House

now, but Mr. Smith received a letter from the president and secretary

of the Burnaby Parent-Teacher Council, in which they said to him: "We

wish to bring to your attention a matter of great concern." It goes on

to talk about the fact that in 1975, 66.95 percent of the cost of

education was borne by the provincial government. Today — in 1979 —

that has dropped to 50 percent. What the new budget has done is to drop

the responsibility of the province even further. The provincial share

is now a mere 45.17 percent, a drop of another 14.39 percent, or a drop

of nearly 31 percent in the last six years. It goes on to say that if

cost-sharing continues at the present rate, it can be assumed that the

province will be out of the business of funding public education in

Burnaby by 1982.

You know what's happening at the same time that they're shifting the

cost of education onto the taxpayer in Burnaby? At the same time they

are integrating handicapped children into the public school system. The

Donald Paterson School is now integrated into the public school system.

The municipality has to accept full responsibility for the expenses of

that particular school. More and more, even with the homeowner grant,

the burden is being shifted.

The B.C. Teachers' Federation and a number of other groups sent a

resolution asking that the government desist from this shifting of more

and more of the burden of education onto the local taxpayer and away

from the provincial coffers.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: My blue light is on? I haven't even started.

Very quickly, I hope that the Minister of Education is in fact going

to take a second look at the Home and School Association's request for

funding, because as you know they are dependent upon their fees, which

aren't adequate. They have 5,000 members who make a major contribution

to the quality of education. The Ministry of Education is always

consulting with them. As they refer to themselves, they are the "token

parent" on every board that the government uses. This is the only

province that doesn't fund them. That certainly is of major concern to

the residents of Burnaby.

There are a number of other concerns: lack of funding and facilities

for day care in the province. I could go on for hours talking about day

care. I guess I'm going to have to wait until the minister's estimates

come up. The department is changing its policy about community grants;

it is opting out of the business of funding community groups and

putting more and more of the services under contract. Contracting for

services is jeopardizing groups like SPARC and other ancient and

important groups that have made a major contribution to the province,

certainly in terms of services to children.

I don't know what to do. I'm running out of time, Mr. Speaker, and it's such a dreadful budget.

HON. MR. MAIR: Why don't you sit down?

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not going to sit down, Mr. Minister,

because I have a couple of other things that I would like to refer to.

But for the main, I want to repeat that certainly the budget has failed

to address itself to some very basic needs and very basic services for

all the people of British Columbia, certainly for the constituency of

Burnaby-Edmonds. It has not addressed itself to the massive

unemployment which we experience in this province today despite the

fact that we are a very wealthy province and there is a surplus. It has

not addressed itself to the areas of job creation, housing, inflation,

etc. I cannot support this budget.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I've been sitting here now for

three weeks and listening to all these dissertations so I thought that

I'd contribute my part today. First of all, I would like to

congratulate you, sir, on your promotion to Deputy Speaker and wish you

the very best for the ensuing sessions of this parliament. I'd also

like to offer my congratulations to the new colleagues we have in the

cabinet, specifically the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I'm sure

that they will enjoy themselves, but I can say, as one of the original

members, we certainly look forward to their input and I know that

they're very capable of doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, we're here today to discuss the budget before us. In

case I forget, I want to tell you that I certainly am very supportive

of this excellent budget which, I know, is very exciting for all the

citizens of British Columbia. This budget leads us in our step into the

eighties. What our citizens are looking for is leadership; and they

certainly will find it through the budget of 1980.

The basic philosophy of this government, Mr. Speaker, is that we

provide an atmosphere for a healthy and confident private sector which

is required to provide jobs for our citizens and the economy, to enable

widespread benefits for our people, and by that I mean that we want an

investment climate in this province that encourages investment and, in

turn, creates jobs and, from that, wealth to the provincial treasury,

so we can carry out probably the best social programs that any province

in Canada and maybe in the free world has. Government has no money

other than that which it takes from its citizens. If we haven't got a

strong economy we are not able to get the revenue to carry out the

wonderful social programs we have. Of course, we're expanding on those

all the time. The new denticare program is an example of that.

I'd just like to compare the current finances of the province,

specifically the reporting, with those of a few years back. This

government has instituted quarterly reporting of financial statements.

This government, when they were elected in 1975, promised we would have

an auditor-general, and we now have an auditor-general who, as a matter

of fact, just made her second report. All this is through the

leadership of our fine Premier who brought our province back from the

wrack and ruin of the great socialist years, '72 to '75. That's when

the citizens of this province decided they'd had enough and they

rallied around our leader who is now our Premier. We gave them a real

spanking in 1975, a real good licking, even to the tune — people forget

— that the Premier of that day was defeated in his own riding, which

very rarely happened in the history of our politics. That's how badly

the citizens of this province wanted to get rid of them.

I had the honour to be in the first cabinet that Bill Bennett formed

and I can assure you we sure inherited lots of problems and real

messes. But what they fail to tell us here is that the '75 election was

called for a coverup, Mr. Speaker, and we found out following December

22, 1975, what they were

[ Page 1569 ]

covering up. In fact, if you recall, Mr. Speaker, they wanted the

election so they could get back into power and really tell us the

financial state of our province. But it didn't work that way; the

people knew something was off the rails, and we found out and inherited

the mess that they had made.

For the record, I would like to remind this House that when they

assumed power in September 1972 the cookie jar was overflowing. They

did better than that; they spent all that money plus the revenues and

ended up on December 11, 1975, when the people voted, with a deficit of

$260-odd million. It was an absolute disgrace. If it had happened in

any other part of our society, there are other things to do. But in any

case, the majority of our citizens saw that something had to happen.

I might say, related to this budget, Mr. Speaker and members of this

House, that in this budget is $26 million, the second instalment on the

debt they created over the experiment in socialism we had from 1972 to

1975. We went through an election in 1979, and in some places you would

think they'd actually won. But they were defeated again in 1979, and I

don't think we'll ever see the day when this province will see a

socialist-led government as we had from 1972 to 1974.

The people on the other side are very suspicious of everybody and

everything, including their own people. I think if they could clear

that out of their minds they'd have a better opportunity, but they

don't really even respect each other. They're suspicious of everybody,

and it permeates the way they operate here, which is a bit of a

disaster and has been since this House started.

Mr. Speaker, to criticize this budget really amazes me, because tax

reductions have been made in this budget. There are also provisions for

the future. They don't seem to realize that over a period of four years

of hard work by this government we have created an economy that is

generating funds so that our people are gainfully employed — the

majority, I might say, at very good salary levels. They are doing quite

well, thank you very much, as well as having good social programs.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a comment or two regarding the item of

special warrants, which they say this government has the largest of. I

was here from 1972 to 1975, and I'll never forget the overrun, or the

clerical error in their financing. As I say, they called it a clerical

error or an overrun, but it was for $100 million. Really, to this day,

as a citizen of British Columbia I've never found out what they did

with that money. The burning part of that was that they didn't have it

in the first place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, a government policy. We've had special

warrants for roadwork, and we can see the improvement in our roads. We

got value for the overrun. I don't think they even accept the fact that

the $200 million for interest stabilization that was passed from

surplus funds by special warrant.... They seem to want to say that

we've done nothing about housing. Well, that was innovative. No

government has ever done that. Certainly the funds were picked up in a

hurry, but at least it was a start.

The last thing I would like to say about special warrants is that

there was a huge difference between their special warrants and ours.

They didn't have the money and we did.

That's good management of the fiscal responsibilities of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get onto another subject for a

minute. The great leader and president of the B.C. Federation of

Labour, when I saw him on television, said he was very unhappy with

this budget because it wasn't job-creating. Well, I don't know where

he's been, but that is not a fact. When you have so-called responsible

citizens like that making statements when they're asked for their

comments by our wonderful reporters, they should really admit that they

don't know what they are talking about, if they want to continue making

this type of statement.

I would like to deal first of all with forestry. It was revealed

right there — this man knew what was revealed there.... Forestry is

one of the big sections for our good labour force in this province. The

money for forestry from this government is doubled in this budget, to

make sure we have a basic forest industry from now on and into the

future for our people that are coming. Apart from all that, the

reforestation program will supply a lot of the additional jobs on the

reforestation side itself.

The other thing I haven't told the House — and I should tell them —

is that I'm always happy to say I'm the MLA for Cariboo. Forestry is a

big item in my riding. I might say that our people in the Cariboo are

delighted with this budget, and delighted with the way this government

operates. All they want is a good climate to operate in; this

government has given them that. In my riding they don't want handouts

from government, as we hear they do in some places. They only want to

be able to get on with the business of making a living and, hopefully,

making a profit; they'll take their chances, and they're glad this

government gives them this opportunity.

While I'm on forestry, there's over a billion dollars already under

construction, or committed, in the forest industry alone in this

province. That's the confidence that sector has in the ability of this

government. It's a funny thing, but most of that happened after the May

1979 election. They weren't so sure about British Columbia. They made

lots of plans. But following the May 1979 election they really started

spending it, making major commitments and investment in construction.

In that regard, on April 1 my riding of Cariboo will be starting on a

new thermal mechanical pulp mill at an investment of $80 million or $90

million, with 300 or 400 jobs during construction and 150 permanent

jobs afterwards. This applies to my riding, as it applies to other

ridings around this province. The atmosphere has been created.

Now I want to get on to mining a bit. You know, mining started in

Cariboo riding. You hear all the rest of these people talking about it,

but the gold rush of 1860 took place in the famous community of

Barkerville, and Barkerville is still there. In any case, in about 1862

Barkerville was larger than Vancouver, and it was the largest community

north of San Francisco. In those days the people of Barkerville didn't

even know whether Vancouver would ever amount to anything.

The mining policy of this government as compared to that of our

friends the socialists over there is the difference between day and

night. With their mineral royalties legislation, from '73 to '75, they

drove all the investment out of this province. Our government brought

on legislation to clear this up and again create an atmosphere for

investment in mining. As I told you, Mr. Speaker, I sat through this

House from '72 to '75. I was rather proud I was one of the few who

survived the onslaught of the socialist hordes. Anyway, they got

[ Page 1570 ]

playing around with mining legislation. I think one of the better

things that came up in opposition in those days.... They had two or

three Ministers of Mines during their administration; one of them is

the present member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). It was said then —

and it was certainly true-of the Ministers of Mines the NDP had from

'72 to '75 that they were the best Ministers of Mines the Yukon ever

had. They drove all our mining interests to the Yukon. I never forgot

that.

Now, of course, this is all changed around. The last thing I heard —

I think it was during the last election or a little before that — the

now Leader of the Opposition said: "You mining people, don't you worry

about voting for us, because if you want a deal you come to my office."

What a great way to have a mining policy: you'd come to what he thought

would be the Premier's office. There were deals for everybody.

That's another thing that leads me to the short debate we're having

here. They have been here, and there's nothing new. I've been here too

long, maybe. They've never contributed anything in here to

construct.... Where's their alternate program? Everything we do is

wrong; it's all wrong. I'd like to hear what their mining policy is, or

any other policy — forestry or anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been listening.

HON. MR. FRASER: I've been listening to you for three weeks.

Now you just sit down, and you listen to me. However, Mr. Speaker, back

to "where is mining now?" Mining is booming all over the province of

British Columbia. I see the landslide member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell)

just left, and that's why he left, because his riding — I've been all

through his riding — has a great mining background, and mining is going

on up there in spite of him, and it is great to see. New mines are

opening up or they're under construction, and again we have commitments

of over a billion dollars in mining in this province of British

Columbia. This government has supplied the legislation and environment,

and they are getting on. Again, they only started this when they were

sure that we'd be around for a while, and it all followed the May 1979

election, after the second defeat we gave those people over there.

Again, I would just like to say that oil and gas exploration is

booming, as we've heard before from my colleague the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), booming

all over the province, specifically in his riding. And there are great

things going on in oil and gas exploration in the North Peace River

riding.

But again, back to my own riding of Cariboo, I am happy to tell you

that oil and gas exploration has started there because of the policy of

this government. They're drilling for oil and gas and I wish them lots

of luck in finding it. But I want to pay tribute to the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in regard to the work going on in

my riding, drilling for oil and gas. Not only did the government of

British Columbia get a half million dollars in fees from this fine

Canadian company that bought the rights to go in there, Canadian Hunter

Exploration Ltd., but they also got a work commitment from them to

spend over $27.5 million over the next five years, and they've got a

bond for that. So I want to deal with government policy. We not only

get the fees that are subscribed — and they are always hollering over

there that we're the giveaway gang; they don't know anything about this

at all — but we have that company's bond that they will carry out $27.5

million worth of development work over the next five years. Of course,

if they don't, then they've defaulted on their bond and our province is

that much better off. The point I'm trying to make is we not only get

the fees for the oil and gas, but I want to give credit to the Ministry

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for also pinning these people

down so that they will do development work.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture is a big and important part

or segment of our economy, and generally speaking is in fairly good

shape. I just want to refer to my own riding again and tell you that

that's an important part. Last year, out of the community of Williams

Lake, 46,000 head of beef cattle were shipped to market. Williams Lake

is the bull shipping capital of the world, and Williams Lake is part of

the Cariboo.

Back to the budget and job creation — it is an absolute great

budget, creating jobs in so many areas that it's hard to enumerate them

all. At the present time, provided for in this budget, the largest

hospital construction program ever is going on. This budget assures

that it will continue to go on. We have B.C. Place, a great innovative

project thought up by the Premier of our province and our leader, along

with a lot of other people. Believe me, it will be a fact of life

within two or three years, and that will create lots and lots of jobs

for planners, for architects, for labourers, and so on. You all know

about the Annacis crossing, and I know that you have heard about it,

Mr. Speaker. That will provide jobs and lots of them. As a matter of

fact, at the height of construction.... And it will be built in

spite of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds' (Ms. Brown'

s) remarks saying

that there are rumours going around that it won't be built. I assure

you on behalf of this government, it will be. Construction will start

next year, and at the height of construction it will employ about 4,000

people in different construction trades and so on on that one project

alone.

I've mentioned the new mines, the gas and oil exploration and the

new pulp mills, and I mentioned the one in the Cariboo in addition to

the ones going into Prince George and on Vancouver Island. All kinds of

new jobs will be created, not only on the construction side but

permanently afterwards, caused by the policies of this government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure glad to see that you found time to come back.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member showing contempt for the Chair?

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, never, Mr. Speaker — never. I want to

refer again to the negative Nellies that are over on the other side.

They always see the negative side of everything. They're always talking

about the bankruptcies in our province. They get great glee out of

reporting the number of bankruptcies that take place in this province.

Well, I'd like to look again at the positive side and just show you

what has happened in our province since we cleaned our souls of the

socialists in 1975.

In 1975 there were 10,267 companies registered in British Columbia;

in 1976 there were 12,355 registered; in 1977 there were 13,209, in

1978 there were 15,215; and in 1979 there were 17,611. I'd like them to

keep on talking about the

[ Page 1571 ]

bankruptcies, but I'd like to talk about the companies that are

incorporated — on the optimistic side. We've had 7,000 companies

incorporate in the province of British Columbia since we've been

government in this period of four years.

On the job factor — just to comment on my own direct

responsibilities of transportation and highways — yes, we're building

and rebuilding roads and bridges all over this province. We intend to

continue with that and you can see all of that in the budget. For this

year, 1980, it will probably create an additional 10,000 jobs from the

programs that ar