1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4777 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On the amendment to vote 104: building occupancy charges –– 4777

Mr. King

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Levi

Division on the amendment

On vote 105: computer and consulting charges –– 4779

Mr. King

On the amendment to vote 105 –– 4779

Mr. King

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lea

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Howard

Mr. Mitchell

Division on the amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 206: minister's office –– 4786

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lauk

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 104: building occupancy charges, $10,392,117.

MR. KING:

To recap the purpose for our amendment to this particular vote and to

remind the minister and his colleagues of what the purpose of this

amendment is, I just want to point out that what we have before us is

an increase in building occupancy charges of 90 percent over last year.

The estimate last year was roughly $3.1 million, and that has jumped a

very staggering amount for the coming year — up to nearly $10.5 million.

pointed out that throughout the length and breadth of the province

there are facilities which have been historically occupied by the

Ministry of Forests and are now vacant. We think it's excessive and

extravagant that we see this kind of increase in building occupancy

costs apparently to accommodate simply a reorganization of that

ministry. We look at this figure and the absolutely unpardonable

increase that it represents, and we relate that to the budget, which

has imposed extremely heavy tax increases on the people of B.C. We say

that this is unconscionable.

We believe that we see fat in

this government's estimates, as revealed by the estimates all the way

through. We see extravagance in this government's estimates. We see

outlandish increases in the cost of furniture acquisition, building

occupancy and travel expenses so that ministers of the Crown can go on

junkets around the world. We believe that it's not good enough to ask

the people of the province to absorb ever-accelerating tax increases to

fund the kind of irresponsible extravagance that this government is

patently guilty of. Accordingly we moved a reduction in this particular

estimate of $7.5 million that could be a direct saving to the

taxpayers, working people and the senior citizens of this province. It

would not in any way affect the necessary and essential programs which

the Ministry of Forests is obliged to deliver respecting proper

silviculture and proper regeneration programs and so on.

No, this particular vote has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

This vote simply relates to the extravagant kinds of suites of offices

which the minister and his senior staff have apparently obtained for

themselves in the city of Victoria, and probably in Vancouver. The

minister hasn't explained in any way what justifies this staggering

increase in cost for building occupancy. We think that it is

scandalous. We urge all members of this House, whether they be on the

opposition side or the government side, to view this in terms of their

responsibility to their own constituents — to ask themselves in good

conscience whether or not they call support this kind of extravagant

spending where no need has been demonstrated. We ask all members to

look deeply into their consciences when it comes to the vote that will

provide an opportunity to relieve the taxpayers of the onerous burden

that has been imposed upon them by this kind of unnecessary, frivolous

and extravagant estimate in the minister's building occupancy costs.

I urge each and every member of

the House to support the amendment which would trim some of the fat and

some of the extravagance out of this particular estimate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I think fat was eliminated from government in 1975 about the 11th of

December. The member talks about the extravagant offices for the

executives of the Forest Service in Vancouver and Victoria. Our office

in Vancouver is and has been in the old Marine Building for many years.

The executive and administrative offices in Victoria are in the old Mac

and Mac warehouse, which has been remodelled to accommodate them — very

extravagant.

The member says that this increased expenditure

is simply to accommodate the reorganization of the Ministry of Forests.

Well, a lot of the expense is to accommodate the reorganization. But

the reorganization of the ministry is absolutely essential in order to

fulfil the mandate of forest management which we now have. We have to

have a well-functioning and well-placed ministry staff throughout the

province in order to carry on with this tremendously important job of

managing the forests for ourselves and for future generations of

British Columbians.

Let me just run through the details of

the increase in budget from $3.2 million to $10.4 million. As I

mentioned, this is partly a result of reorganization of the ministry

and partly as a result of the B.C. Buildings Corporation involvement in

providing accommodation for the various ministries.

Last

year we had a charge of $2.5 million for occupied space; that has been

increased to $4.4 million this year. We have to continue to occupy that

space as we are making the transition in our reorganization. The cost

of operating that space last year was $0.7 million; this year it's $0.8

million. The cost of operating and administering properties transferred

to BCBC is $l million. We have 35 new capital projects planned for

1981-82, and these will be coming on stream during the year, there's a

charge there of $1.8 million. We have to lease temporary space while

this new space is being prepared; that cost will be $1.9 million. And

we have miscellaneous small-space requirements, primarily in Victoria,

costing about $0.5 million: for a total of $10.4 million.

There

is no frivolous spending here. I believe that the people who work for

the Forest Service should have good working conditions. They are not

extravagant working conditions. I think the people who work for the

government have just as much right to pleasant working surroundings as

any one else; there is no extravagance involved. They are part of

efficient administration and application of the plans we have for the

better management of the forests of British Columbia for today and for

the future.

MR. LORIMER: I'm glad to hear that the

minister has tried to explain some of the increase in expenditures, but

he tells us there's no expense here for housing of staff, and that in

actual fact there are few changes, but he certainly hasn't explained

the rapid increase in amounts of some $7 million in the housing of his

ministry.

The estimate for last year amounted to over $3

million, and in the first ten months of the year $3.1 million was

spent, according to the figures we received on the interim financial

statements. Carrying this out to a 12-month period at the same ratio,

it would come to just slightly over what the

[ Page 4778 ]

estimated

figure was — it would come to about $3.4 million rather than the $3.1

million which was budgeted for. Now suddenly we go from that figure up

to the estimate for this year of $10 million. In a period when

the government and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) have been

talking about restraint, surely restraint should also be looked at from

the government position and not only from all other sectors, with no

restraint on the government's part.

I think the minister has

a duty and a responsibility to this House to explain dollar by dollar

how he arrives at such an excessive figure. If it isn't merely a

question of fat he should certainly tell us what it is that is causing

this great increase in the expenditures for the housing of the Ministry

of Forests. The explanations that have been given so far don't indicate

at all why this substantial increase from $3 million to $10 million....

It's an increase of over $7 million we've got here. There's a threefold

or fourfold increase in this particular estimate. It certainly looks to

me, and I'm sure it looks to those of us on this side of the House,

that that's being very extravagant. It's being wasteful, and it shows

that this budget is covered in fat. We hope the minister will tell us

how he arrives at this figure of $10 million.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the member to the Blues for this morning's session, which will be coming out later today.

MR. LEVI:

The Minister of Forests really is a delightful individual. He has no

manners; he's quite arrogant in his quiet little, snoose-chewing way. I

want to ask the minister a couple of questions. One of the things we

attempted to do in this House last year was understand what BCBC was

charging the ministries. I would like the minister to see whether he

can tell me approximately how much his ministry is paying per square

foot. The reason I ask him this is that last year I asked the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) if he could tell me how they were

calculating the square-foot cost on the rentals. He wrote me a letter,

and he said that they were using a study that had been produced by the

Building Owners and Managers Association as a guideline. I wrote to

them and they wrote back saying: "The average operating and maintenance

costs for buildings in Vancouver in 1979 was $3.67." The Provincial

Secretary, who is responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, said

that was their guideline.

One of the things that the

minister has told us today is that the cost for renting space for all

of their office needs — we're not talking now about any of the capital

programs — was $2.5 million. This year the same space has doubled. I

can only presume, based on the letter that I got from the Building

Owners and Managers Association and on what the Provincial Secretary

said, that that was their guideline. Somehow the space-rental cost for

buildings has gone from $3.50-$4.00 per square foot to $8.00 per square

foot. It may be that in this particular vote we can also find out

something about B.C. Buildings Corporation which we have never been

able to find out before. The minister has told us that his space costs

have exactly doubled. If the minister can give us that square footage,

fine. I gather that they're operating at approximately the same square

footage, and this year they'll have an additional 200 people.

also want to ask the minister this. This vote is not just simply for

building and rental accommodation, if the minister goes to the back of

the book and looks for a definition. Under code (60), which appears

under the vote, it says: "Rentals — outside suppliers: includes the

lease or rental of land, buildings, aircraft, and equipment not

included in any other classification (such as automobiles for staff

travel)." That vote could cover all of those things that were not

covered in any other particular vote.

I'd like the minister

to tell us, if he can, if he has any idea of what the average cost per

square foot is — we'll deal with Victoria, never mind about

Vancouver.... There is a cost guideline used that presumably BCBC is

telling the ministries, because when BCBC first started there were a

lot of ministries upset about the high cost of paying for rents. They

arrived at a formula. The formula was to look at the average cost of

what you would pay in the Vancouver area, and it would be somewhat

slightly less in Victoria. Is there anything in this vote that does not

deal with rentals? I did not understand what the minister was saying

when he talked about capital costs and applied a figure of $1.6

million. Is he talking there about the soft costs of what is going to

take place in some construction? That's something I understood was

absorbed by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. That is their function. In

respect to new capital programs, what are the costs that have to show

in his estimates?

Just to repeat, does the minister have any

idea of what the cost per square foot is? Are any other things included

under this particular vote, outside of rentals? Is he, for instance, in

this vote buying any new aircraft or leasing any new equipment, or is

it purely for the purpose of rental accommodation? Those are the basic

questions I'd like to have answered by the minister at the moment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Firstly, for the capital projects which I mentioned, the number is $1.8

million, not $1.6 million, as the member said. This is for rental of

new capital projects which are coming onstream this year. The project

space will be provided by B.C. Buildings Corporation. The $1.8 million

is for rental for them for that accommodation which we'll be occupying

this year.

I would point out that the increase in the

continuation of space from last year from $2.5 million to $4.4 million

is that big an increase partly because last year a lot of that space

was not occupied for the full year. We had come into some of that space

during the year and therefore wouldn't be paying for it for the entire

year. This year, of course, we will be occupying for the full year that

space we occupied last year, so there is a larger number. The rates

that we pay B.C. Buildings Corporation vary with the area of the

province and type of accommodation. Their policy is a market-rate

policy. It runs an average of $9 to $10 a square foot, again depending

upon the area and the type of lease that we have entered into with B.C.

Buildings Corporation. The rentals and outside suppliers — at times,

because of the remoteness of some of our space, we provide our own

maintenance. In order to do this, quite often we hire outside

janitorial services and that type of thing.

I think that

pretty well covers the questions the member asked. He asked some

questions which were already covered. I would refer him to the Blues if

he wishes to see it in detail again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those voting in favour of the amendment, please stand.

Those voting nay, please stand.

Would the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) indicate which way he is prepared to vote.

[ Page

4779 ]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, when a member does not rise in his place it is an affirmative vote. That is in Sir Erskine May.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our standing orders are quite clear, hon. member. Each member who is present must vote.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I was engrossed in what I was doing, but had I voted I would have voted in the negative.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hon. Mr. Waterland requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 104 approved.

Oil vote 105: computer and consulting charges, $6,160,063.

MR. KING:

Once again we see spending estimates laced with extravagance. Once

again we see a dramatic increase in the estimates for this service,

computer and consulting charges — a 100 percent increase, from almost

$3 million last year up to over $6 million this year, with no

explanations whatsoever. There's nothing to indicate why we have this

spectacular increase in computer and consulting charges. I want to

suggest that the harassed and beleaguered taxpayers of the province of

British Columbia cannot afford to continue supporting one hundred

percent increases at the whims of ministers, without any explanation

whatsoever This is an extremely punitive kind of financial gouging,

I think it's totally irresponsible that the minister comes in with this

kind of estimate in two lines. There's no explanation. There's no itemization

of why these charges are skyrocketing 100 percent. It's shocking, it's

shameful and it's wasteful. It indicates that this is a government out of

control in terms of their spending habits. There is nothing to justify this

kind of spectacular increase that we see in building occupancy, travel expenses,

frills for ministers, in advertising to propagandize for their own political

failures, and in acquiring new furniture so that then plush offices may be

more comfortable — all at the expense of taxpayers who have had to undergo onerous

and fantastic increases in costs this year.

It's

shameful. There's no justification. There's no attempt to justify it.

Accordingly, I must again move a reduction in this largesse to

government. I move that vote 105 be reduced by $3,246,266. In so doing,

I want to advise the House that the amendments for reductions of

wasteful spending in this one ministry alone, were all these amendments

accepted, amount to $12,916,432. That's what could be saved. If members

of this legislative assembly would vote according to their conscience

and vote to ease the burden on taxpayers — over $12 million!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to hear that. It's in order and

it's most appropriate. I commend its support to every member of this

House.

The people on the other side are fond of going around

the province and counselling restraint and prudence. "Tighten the purse

strings and lower your expectations," they say to the working people of

the province when they go to the bargaining table. This coming year we

have major bargaining sessions in the key industries in the province of

British Columbia: we have bargaining approaching in the forest

industry; we have major bargaining sessions in the mining industry and

in all the fundamental resource areas that are crucial to stability in

the economy of British Columbia. I want to ask the members: how can you

in good conscience ask management and labour to address themselves to

these bargaining sessions in a responsible and restrained fashion,

having regard for the need to continue the revenue payments to the

province from these vital areas, when this government is prepared to

come in with cost increases and frills which represent 100 percent and

at the same time ask working people who are going to the bargaining

table to restrain themselves and to ask for 6 percent and 8 percent

increases, and then to criticize them, as many members of the executive

council have done when they believed that their asking price for the

sale of their labour is too high in the view of the cabinet?

cannot continue to impose these kinds of tax burdens and cost increases

on the working people of the province of British Columbia and at the

same time punish them with the tax increases which this government has

subjected them to as a result of these unwarranted and unconscionable

increases in frills for the minister and his staff. It's totally

irresponsible and totally unjustified. I urge each and every member of

this House who has some sensitivity to the plight of senior citizens,

those on fixed incomes and students who can't get a job this summer to

refinance their education — I urge all of the people in this chamber

who are interested in the plight of those people out in the community —

to support the reduction of the waste and the fat and the extravagance

that is patently apparent throughout this government's estimates.

[ Page 4780 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The frills and extravagances that the member talks about: I hope the

member is aware that British Columbia — most definitely the Ministry of

Forests in this province — is leading the world in the computerization

of inventories and the computerized handling of all technical

information related to management of our forests. Last year we were

underfunded. This year we are increasing our expenditures in areas that

will lead to better management of our forests: such things as a

yield-analysis program in our planning branch, our nursery inventory

system, the development of new growth and yield-sample modelling

systems in the province, expanding our IGDS inventory-mapping system,

our resource analysis and economic productivity studies — which are

ongoing, so that we can always know the state of our forest and range

resources in the province.

We're installing additional

hardware for computerized lightning detection and location systems to

help protect our forests from fires — a way of helping to offset the

biological falldown that would otherwise occur. We're getting new

hardware for the implementation of our support and distribution

data-processing systems. A lot of our overexpenditure last year was a

result of having to go to a special minimum stumpage for the market

loggers so that the small businessman could receive the benefit of

special stumpage rates; of implementing a new log-grading system to

more nearly reflect the value and the grades of the logs produced in

British Columbia; of implementing a new stud-appraisal system to more

closely reflect the actual market conditions for stud producers in the

province.

The major increases this year are: to enhance our

harvest data-base system, so that we have better and more accurate

information about our forests; to start a pilot project in electronic

recording and gathering of field data; to enhance our standard

appraisal system. All of these things are directly related to better

management of our forests for today and for the future. If these are

frills, I'll accept these frills for our forests.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, one doesn't have to do more than glance through the

estimate book to see what the Systems Corporation has done to this

province in terms of computerization and cost. I suggest that any vote

that doubles from under $3 million to over $6 million in one year has a

lot of answering to do before we accept: "We're doing a pilot project

here, and we're going to be leading the world there, etc." I suggest

that this is computerization gone absolutely berserk. If I thought for

one second, Mr. Chairman, that this was going to be something that

would be efficient and something that would give us a return, then

maybe I would be just a little bit more satisfied. I know that since

the medicare commission went on the Systems Corporation there have been

doctors across the province squawking their heads off because they

can't even get their cheques straight, or on time or anywhere close. In

forestry I know that it is important to get in touch with all those

things that are going on around us. But when we double in one year,

then one must be suspicious.

Building occupancy is way up and computerization is double.

I just don't understand it. Could it be an overestimation so that one

can come in under budget? Could it be that those cynics are right —

that all they're trying to do is to trap a few dollars so that next

year there will be goodies for the folks? Oh, that is a cynical

thought.

When one carefully observes these estimates and

when one thinks of what the people in this province have had to do in

shelling out to support this budget — a 50 percent increase in sales

tax, an increase in school taxes and increases elsewhere — then one has

to ask the questions: what are we doing? This is the kind of vote that

makes me very suspicious indeed. It's a vote that will double from $3

million to $6 million in one year. It takes an awful lot of doing,

colleagues, to increase that much in this particularly technical field.

It strikes me that when we set up the B.C. Systems Corporation the

hardware and that kind of function was to be in their bailiwick. Are we

duplicating in Forests? This government opted to borrow money to work

the B.C. Systems Corporation capitalization through. Now we note that

the minister stands up and talks about hardware. I understand software,

but I just don't understand the hardware aspect.

I support

this amendment, and any of the thinking members of the government side

— not the cabinet; they're locked in, and they haven't thought since

the day they were in government in 1975 — but the government

backbenchers.... At least stand up and defend the minister. If

you've got something to say in support of what he's doing, then get up

and put your words on the record. That's the least we can expect from

you. So far we've had total silence from that government side with the

exception of the minister's brief explanation....

MR. KING: George got up.

MR. COCKE:

I apologize; the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) got up yesterday

and made jokes about insects. Other than that, all we hear is them

speaking from their seats, enjoying the knowledge that they will not be

recorded in Hansard . They haven't the courage to get up and support this minister's vote. I support it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I'm rather surprised at the member for New Westminster. The member for

Dewdney yesterday made some remarks about insects. I'm sure that member

recognizes the very serious nature of our insect infestation problem in

B.C. I'm surprised that the member for New Westminster takes that very

serious problem so lightly.

The member for New Westminster

has gone on record as being against the effective use of computers in

the management of our forests in British Columbia. He says that because

this is a technical field, you need not use computers. The more

technical the field, the more opportunities there are for

computerization and correlation of data gathered. The member, by being

against the effective use of computers, must at the same time be

against the better management of our forests, because the two go hand

in hand. It's no wonder that no advances in the management of our

forests were made during their term of office. I would hate to think of

them ever again getting into office. They would take giant strides

backwards.

B.C. has the most progressive forest management

programs of any jurisdiction on this continent. That member is against

that, or he's against the use of computers which have provided us with

the tools we need to get on with that management. It is surprising and

shocking to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must advise all

members that again we tend to be straying somewhat from the vote, both

in the minister's reply and in the statements by members. I would

advise all members that on this particular vote, vote 105, we

[ Page 4781 ]

are talking about computer and consulting charges and the amendment thereto.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, that is the point that I was going to raise when I stood

in my place. The fact is, instead of defending his situation here —

doubling his budget — he has an attack on the former government and the

member for New Westminster without saying one single word in defence of

his position. That's what it's all about. The opposition asks

questions. I suggested yes, we're all for better management. I asked

the question, however: how do you double in one year, particularly in a

technological situation like this? That was no answer at all. It was

just as insulting as that minister was when he was working for the

mining department in 1972, '73, '74 and '75 and was going around

undermining the government he was working for. Just the same kind of

personality conflict and attacks. I find it quite repugnant.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

That member continues to display his disdain for the public servants of

British Columbia. When I was working for the department of mines during

1972....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Although

the matter was referred to briefly by the previous speaker, I must

advise all members that presently under discussion is vote 105,

computer and consulting charges. It is the only item that we may

discuss at this time. I would again caution all members that if we are

to effectively discharge our responsibilities, we must give some

attention to the rules that bind this House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

My remarks regarding my activities during 1972-75 would be just as

brief as the remarks from the member for New Westminster. I would say

that during that period of time I worked for a government. I did not

work for a disastrous party. I did not agree with the policies; I

administered them when I was on the job, and when I was off the job I

did every possible thing I could do to make sure that party was removed

from government, because it was a disaster for British Columbia.

the member wishes to know more detail about the increase in our

computer costs this year, I would again refer him to the Blues, because

I went through this at great length earlier.

MR. NICOLSON:

I will try to keep very closely to this vote and this amendment. This

vote has been around for a few years, and when in one year you propose

to more than double it from $2.9 million up to $600-odd million....

When you increase it by $3,246,266, which is about a 110 or 120

percent increase, it is almost axiomatic, especially in an area such as

computer technology where things are changing daily, that in your rush

you're going to buy equipment that is going to be obsolete. I would

like to ask the minister one thing: in this outlandish increase, how

much is going to be spent to write new software which will be

compatible with the new IBM main-frame computer? Because they're going

to be removing the Honeywell computer from service. How much of it is

simply going into that? How much of this so-called increase is really

necessary simply to replace, adapt or modify software?

would ask the minister if there is going to be any decentralization of

their computers. That's supposed to be the thrust of the forestry

reorganization program. Does all the computer data go into a central

main-frame computer to have centralized decisions made, or is this

equipment going to be minicomputers, maybe microcomputers — smaller

computers which are far more economical and efficient and would appear

to be the more logical type of system for a ministry which pretends to

be decentralizing? Not that I believe that to be the case.

Another

thing the minister says is that we're going to need all of this because

we ran into things last year and we're upgrading and so on. Well, what

has the ministry done in terms of spending the money that we voted

under this vote last year? Last year this House approved in good faith,

I think unanimously, $2.9 million plus a little bit. What had you

expended in the first ten months? Actual expenditures were $2.2

million. If we extrapolate what we might expect to spend in the

remainder of the year, that would be $2.6 million, leaving a surplus of

$300,000. In other words, you probably won't even spend what you were

allotted last year. So when we see all the other padding and all the

other fat throughout your estimates, Mr. Minister, it makes us very

suspicious that perhaps what we are going to be spending money on here

are not simply those things required to bring about electronic

detection and logging of lightning strikes in order to automate and to

do away with other types of observation in fire suppression.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

How

can we possibly in this ever-changing field spend more than

double what we spent last year, and be sure that it is going to be well

spent? What we have here is a situation where a Crown corporation

appears to be running out of control, and where a ministry is captive

to that corporation and cannot make the kinds of management decisions

that it might prefer to make within its ministry. It appears that we're

trying to make the foot fit the shoe rather than the other way around.

So we have this one massive computer system and all of the various

departments in the Ministry of Forests are being forced to fit that

mould.

I want to ask the minister for something a little bit

less general than what he's given us so far today. How much are each

and every one of these programs going to cost? What kind of computers

are you going to buy? In what general size are they going to be? What

brands?

MR. BRUMMET: What colour?

MR. NICOLSON:

Perhaps what colour. Yes, computers do come in colours. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, computers are something that interest me. I can program a

computer to write in its basic machine language. In assembler language,

in Basic language, in Fortran language. I subscribe to two or three

journals.

As much as I might like and be intrigued by

computer hardware and technology, I am alarmed by this kind of an

increase, particularly when I see the kinds of things that are on the

horizon in computer technology. I know that when there is a mad

scramble to spend money because your budget has been more than doubled

in one year, that money could be very ill-spent. And I must say that

the investments that I make in computer technology are investments that

come very slowly out of my own pocketbook, and the investments that

you're making in computer technology should come slowly and rationally,

because they're coming out of the pocketbooks of

[ Page 4782 ]

the people of this province, who are not even fascinated and mesmerized by computer technology.

Mr.

Chairman, computer technology holds out some of the greatest promise,

but it is also one of the things that we must approach with the

greatest of caution. When we see in this first ministry that is before

us that we are more than double.... I say, let's save money. Let's

spend as much as we spent last year and let's spend no more.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, throughout the minister's estimates we've attempted to

show where we consider there is fat, where we feel that money has been

put into a vote without any intention to spend that money. But they

come in at the end of the year and say: "Look at that, we didn't spend

our money. Lo and behold, we've got a little bit of a surplus here, and

this might be the election year coming up." As we go through these

votes we find, time and time again, that there is evidence to support

the theory that that's exactly what the government is going to do. We

take a look at vote 105, computer and consulting charges, and we see it

up by 100 percent. On the same vote another ministry is up from $49,000

to $143,750 — up almost 200 percent. The other ministry can't use the

kind of lame duck excuses that this ministry is using in trying to

justify the increase in vote 105.

The surprising thing is

that the people from Cranbrook, Fort St. John, Houston, Mission —

people who are represented in this province by backbenchers of

government.... It seems to me that people living in those ridings

represented by an MLA have the right to at least know the views of

their MLAs in this House, as they represent those very people. Every

time we move that a vote be reduced because we see it as fat, as too

much money, as a frill....

We see travel expenses,

advertising and publications, computer and consulting charges all going

up, and not one word on behalf of the taxpayers from Fort St. John,

Fraser Lake, Fernie....

MR. BRUMMET: We go home and talk to them.

MR. LEA:

Your job, Mr. Member, is to come in here and talk on behalf of those

people. Honestly, I'm amazed at these members who believe that it's

their duty to come down here and shut up, then stand up when the

government waves a wand at them to vote the way they're supposed to

because they're frightened that they're going to lose their role as

MLAs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will remind the hon.

member for North Peace River not to interrupt while the member for

Prince Rupert is speaking, and the Chair will ask the member for Prince

Rupert to relate his remarks to the amendment to vote 105, computer and

consulting charges.

MR. LEA: Vote 105 is not just for computers; it's for consulting charges. That's a pretty broad

statement. Is it for consulting charges strictly for computers, or is

it consulting charges in the Ministry of Forests in a more broad way?

Are some of the dollars of this increase going to be used to pay the

kind of moneys out that we've noticed lately — for instance, Ron

Basford, $600 a day and a free lunch? That's the kind of thing, that

can come out of here.

How times change. That political party

used to say to us when we were in government: "You people see a

problem and your answer to that problem is to throw some money at it."

This morning we hear the Minister of Forests saying: "We have problems

in the forest industry and our answer, as the Social Credit Party

government, is to throw some money at it and the problem will go away."

There are many ways that the forestry service can improve. We don't

believe that the only way you can improve that service is to throw some

money at it. Indeed, we believe that efficiency of administration might

be one of the answers to cut a little of the fat out of the bureaucracy

that this government is putting together.

Why is vote 105

having to go so high? I suspect that it's another hidden subsidy. The

Systems Corporation needs the money. The Systems Corporation now has

approximately 600 people working for it who are not on the rolls of the

civil service. They don't show up on the books. If you take all of the

functions that this government has shoved off into Crown agencies and

Crown corporations, and count up the people who are working in them and

the money that's being spent, you'll see why vote 105 has increased —

because they're taking taxpayers' money and shoving it into those

government agencies and Crown corporations that they say they have no

time for.

They're the party that said they wanted to curb

government growth. They're the party that said they wanted to put some

sort of system in place that would try to curb the kind of personnel

growth that we see in government. The kind of nonsensical things that

are going on under vote 105 and other votes in this budget are

absolutely incredible. There's a 100 percent increase rather than going

out to the private sector and saying: "What about your computers? What

about putting some sort of system together that has some sort of

efficiency?" Oh, no. This is the party of big government. "Big is

better. Throw more money at it. Let her grow." It's topsy-turvy

bureaucracy. They're so enthralled with the corporate sector and the

kind of bureaucracy that they see in the private corporate sector that

they're trying to duplicate what they see in the bureaucracies of

MacMillan Bloedel, Imperial Oil and the other bureaucracies we have in

the corporate world. They're trying to duplicate it without having the

common sense, savvy and years of experience in the private sector. They

see themselves as having the opportunity to come from Merritt, in

rather a junior position within a government department, to be the

minister who likes to play at being "Mr. Corporate Body." Well, he is

playing at it, and he doesn't play the game well.

At one

time in a bureaucracy in the private sector you had to have seven

pieces of paper to get a pencil, and in the bureaucracy of government

you had to have seven pieces of paper to get a pencil. We've seen a

turnaround with this government. Now where it takes the same number of

copies of paper in the private sector, it takes probably 20 copies to

get a pencil in this bureaucracy gone wild across front us.

those of this group in cabinet who were here in opposition when we were

in government had seen this budget, they would have gone absolutely

wild. A 100 percent increase in vote 105 to a Crown corporation that

the government put together, which they said would be small and

efficient but has grown to an incredible size, to be an incredible

bureaucracy that they're feeding the taxpayers' money through what I

consider to be the back door.... That's all they're doing. This is

a hidden subsidy, and part of it is to a Crown corporation, and the

rest of it won't be spent. At the end of the year they will say: "What

good fiscal managers we are. Oh, I'm sorry we underestimated the

revenue, but then we are such good managers of the economy that the

revenue to the

[ Page 4783 ]

province

increased fantastically even beyond our wildest dreams, because we're

so wonderful as economic managers." Lo and behold, there they are.

Revenue will be up. We'll find that 50 percent of vote 105 won't be

spent. There'll be increased revenues and inaccurate expenditures — not

accurate by the admission of cabinet themselves.

No matter

which explanation you take on this vote and others from the Minister of

Forests or the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), neither adds up.

What we're left with are two different stories from two different

ministers of the same cabinet, and neither of their explanations adds

up to any sort of common sense. This is a bureaucracy gone wild with

hidden subsidies to Crown corporations and government agencies, and

expenditures of the remainder that they don't intend to spend in the

first place. It's called trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the

taxpayers of this province. That's what it's called, and the head

wool-puller is the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 105, please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: We're talking about vote 105.

You

know, it's amazing that this political party that is trying to pull the

wool over the eyes of the taxpayers of British Columbia is pretty much

made up of polyester minds. Mr. Chairman, it's amazing to me that this

group of people would bring in vote 105 and expect the people of this

province to swallow that they're actually going to spend a 100 percent

increase on computer and consulting charges within the Ministry of

Forests. That they expect people to believe that shows, as a political

party, their contempt for the intelligence of the average British

Columbian — their absolute contempt for the people they are sworn to

serve.

How times change from the days of 1972 to 1975 when

Social Credit told us they were against big government, big

bureaucracies and big money, and wanted to try and solve problems that

a little ingenuity and a little innovative idea might solve in the

first place. Their answer, when they are in government, is to do all of

the things that they swore not to do while they were in opposition.

It's a politically schizophrenic government. They have no idea what

holds them together except a raw lust for a cabinet bench and power,

with not one whit of an idea of which direction they're going. Because

they are directionless, because they have no base policy, because

there's no common philosophy that holds them together as a group, we

are bound to see this hodgepodge of financial "pull the wool over the

eyes of the taxpayers" systems that we see in this budget. We reject

this 100 percent increase and support the amendment put forward by the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I can't understand the member's frustration. I know he is speaking

what he thinks is right. I think the member for Prince Rupert is not

trying to deceive this House in any way, but I don't think he is

capable of understanding the magnitude of the forest industry. The

industry has reached a brand new plateau. They complimented the

minister on the magnificence of his new plan. I'm sure that they —

especially he — are unable to grasp the magnificence and the thrust in

the future of this great industry. This is British Columbia's greatest

and largest industry. I can understand what $10 is and I can understand

what $1,000 is. I maybe even understand $10,000. But if anybody

expected me to imagine the thrust of a million dollars, let alone a

billion dollars.... I defy any member of this House to visualize

the thrust of a million dollars. We talk of millions and tens of

millions and billions, but it's impossible for any single mind to

understand the thrust of this kind of force.

It is not the

minister alone. It is his vast and complex department. For a ministry

such as the Ministry of Forests to enter the twenty-first century and

to develop the equipment and the ability to meet world competition,

they must do so with the highest technology. I accept the word of the

minister and his staff when he says that this new technology is

necessary and the new computers are necessary.

had

occasion only yesterday to complain about a small matter in my chequing

account. The bank very clearly asked me the date and the time. I

couldn't get an answer, but they said: "We'll ask the computer." I know

we're moving in a new era. For any member to stand up in this House and

pretend to understand this complex matter is merely wasting the time of

this assembly. I feel that the member for Prince Rupert is trying to be

sincere when he makes these statements. He refers also to when our

government, in opposition a few years ago, would have gone wild over

this budget. Of course they would have gone wild over this budget,

because the government of that day was not capable of even entertaining

such a budget. The fact was that the ship was sinking. The most

important thing then was to bail it out. It wasn't a question of

building it up. There was no building to be done.

The

computer is only part of the system. There are many points in this

estimate that could be argued. Fighting the computer issue itself shows

a lack of understanding and knowledge. I'm prepared — and I think we

should be prepared — to leave this with the experts who say that it is

necessary for this great industry, the largest industry we have in our

province and one on which our whole future is based. When they say we

need computers and we need to spend this money, I am one prepared to

give it to them.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

said this: "Why doesn't the member go back to Mission?" When he

mentioned Mission I decided to speak, because that's my constituency.

Yes, I tell the people in Mission what's going on here. The people in

Mission are pleased, because they have seen the increase in industry

that's been created by this government. There's a tremendous new plant

employing 500 people, and more coming because of the thrust, not only

of one industry. The forest industry is part of it — part of the great

progress of British Columbia. part of the fact that British Columbia is

an oasis of prosperity in a continent of depression. Why is that?

Because we think right. The minister thinks right. His staff think

right. They say that to enter the twenty-first century, we need the

very best computers. I say they should have them.

MR. HOWARD:

With all due respect to my dear friend from Dewdney, we have just seen

an example of what probably was summed up by Benito Mussolini when he

was pushing the advocacy of fascism.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as I have advised the committee, we are on the amendment to vote 105.

MR. HOWARD: You've permitted the member for Dewdney to wander all over the lot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the records will show that I had to bring him back.

[ Page 4784 ]

MR. HOWARD:

In advocating the concepts of fascism, Mussolini said: "I don't need

you to understand; just have faith." That's what the member for Dewdney

was saying. He doesn't understand. He doesn't want to understand, but

he's got blind, absolute faith that the minister is doing the right

thing — no questions, no attempt to query, no attempt to understand, no

desire to appreciate whether it's right or wrong; just blind, absolute

faith. That typifies, I submit, the whole cabal of government

backbenchers — blind followers of a declaration; right or wrong,

they're with it. Seals in training in an aquarium do better than that.

Go to any zoo and see where people are trying to train animals to

perform tricks; they've got more intelligence than that.

MR. BRUMMET: The zoo is here.

MR. HOWARD:

If the member for North Peace River — and I'm sure you'll bring him to

order, Mr. Chairman — wants to say anything in this debate, I suggest

that he stand up so everybody can hear him. Let him tell us whether

he's got blind faith in what the minister is doing.

The estimate before us and the other estimates which are padded....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Speak to the amendment, please.

MR. HOWARD:

The amendment seeks to take out some of the padding. I can't talk about

taking out the padding without talking about the fact that it's padded

in the first place, Mr. Chairman. It seeks to take out some of the fat,

and still leaves the fathead in charge of the ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, personal allusions cannot be allowed in Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD:

Sorry. It seeks to cut out some of the fat in government, and it still

leaves the fatheads in government. How will that be? That's much

broader.

What the the minister is attempting to do here and

what the Minister of Finance is attempting to do with his budget in

this particular vote before us in the amendment reminds me of some of

those sleazy, unprincipled business people who would have a tag on an

item in the store for $5; then they'd put on a sale, and they'd take

the $5 tag off and they'd put on....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order. The member

for Skeena has the floor on the amendment on vote 105. If the member

can relate his debate to that amendment and to that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to

order. If the member for Skeena would please relate his comments to the

Chair and maintain relevancy with respect to the amendment on vote 105,

the committee can proceed smoothly and with courtesy towards our

parliamentary tradition.

MR. HOWARD: Exactly what I was seeking to do, Mr. Chairman, without

the rude interruptions.

looking at this vote and what's involved in the whole estimates of the

ministry, I was talking about a businessman — and not all business

people have high principles — who has an item in his store at the

regular price of $5. Then he has a sale — this used to go on, and it

probably still does — and he takes the $5 tag off the item, puts it in

the drawer, puts another tag on the item for $10, puts a red line

through it, and then says it's on sale for $7.50. That's what we've

got here.

I simply do not believe the minister when be tells

me that it's necessary to increase the money for computer charges by

more than 100 percent. The reason I don't believe him is this: in

1978-79 the amount available and provided for in the estimates for

computer services for this ministry was $2.2 million; in 1979-80 there

was a slight increase to $2.4 million; in 1980-81, the fiscal year

which is just about to end, it was $2.9 million. One could have

expected, taking inflation into account, an increase of the same order,

perhaps $200,000 or $300,000 over the $2.9 million last year. But no,

we don't find that. We find this sudden jump to $6 million. That's why

I do not believe that the minister is presenting an accurate and

correct figure reflecting the actualities. It's a padded figure; it's a

phony figure. All his commentary about the need to keep track by

computers of what is taking place in the forest industry and so on in

no way justifies that excessive amount of money. Either the minister is

not presenting figures to this assembly which are honestly arrived at

and reflect truly and honestly what the situation is, or he's captured

by B.C. Systems Corporation who have just told him that they want $6

million, take it or leave it. Then he hasn't questioned it. If it's the

first, then the motion we sought to move the other day, which we didn't

have an opportunity to move, about his resignation is valid. If it's

the second, and he's been captured by B.C. Systems Corporation who are

just submitting him a bill and he's not questioning it, then he also

should resign. I think it's a complete lack of competence.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, there was a decision made in the House that the committee

has to accept: debate in estimates of supply does not afford the

committee the right to question members being in cabinet or holding a

portfolio. That's from Sir Erskine May.

MR. HOWARD: I

certainly question his competency to hold that portfolio. If the Chair

would listen to what I'm saying, rather than to what the Clerk is

saying about this matter, perhaps the debate could proceed in an

orderly fashion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please return to the amendment.

MR. HOWARD:

That's exactly what I'm dealing with, Mr. Chairman, the amendment. I

didn't mean to say anything unkind to the Clerk at the table. I realize

that he has to give advice from time to time, but I wonder about doing

it on such a continuous basis that it detracts from the Chairman's

understanding of what's taking place in the committee. Just simply in

summation: one, the minister is padding the accounts in order to

justify the onerous tax increases visited upon the people in this

province. His motivation is not straight on, not correct and not

responsible if he's doing that. Or, two, he is incompetent because he

has not examined whether or not B.C. Systems Corporation is presenting

the proper bill to

[ Page

4785 ]

him. Which is it? Are you incompetent or are you fudging the truth, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that remark — that in

fact the minister may be imputing a false motive in his estimates.

MR. HOWARD: I'm asking a question. Is the minister fudging with the truth?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member did question another hon. member's sincerity and imputed a

false motive. I would please ask the member to withdraw that imputation.

MR. HOWARD: I can't even ask the minister a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You cannot question another hon. member on his honour in this House.

MR. HOWARD: Well then, I won't question him as to whether or not he's fudging the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please withdraw the remark?

MR. HOWARD: I won't withdraw the remark. I will withdraw the imputation.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. If the hon. member has imputed any false motives towards

the minister, will the hon. member please withdraw imputation of those.

MR. HOWARD:

I am not and did not intend to impute false motives to him. I think his

motives in presenting this estimate for this amount of money are quite

in keeping with the whole philosophy of Social Credit.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your assistance, but quite frankly, I think

we on this side have become quite used to the low, gutter type of

debate from that member. We recognize the source.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'll remind all members. This committee — and the

Chairman of this committee — has ruled on many occasions in the last

three days that we cannot impute the motive of another hon. member. The

persistent use of insulting language does nothing to forward debate in

this committee. It's been used by many members. It is unacceptable to our

parliamentary tradition. The use of it is becoming far too frequent to

be accepted by the Chair. We have an amendment before us. We are in

committee where we, in fact, discuss the administrative actions of the

minister whose votes are before us. That is what the committee is bound

to do. I would ask all hon. members to retain and to confine their

debate to the bounds that the committee allows us to debate — namely,

at this point, the amendment on vote 105.

MR. MITCHELL: We've just had some well-reasoned debate. The minister

made a remark which I thought was really degrading to this House, that they

were "gutter" statements. I feel that that statement was degrading

to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and I ask you to ask the minister

to withdraw that, which I felt was imputing his motive and his well-reasoned,

responsible debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Minister of Forests, if he has imputed any false or improper motives to any member of this House, please withdraw.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: At your request, certainly, sir.

MR. HOWARD:

I think the record should also show that I wasn't the least bit

interested in asking him to withdraw that kind of statement. It

properly reflected the minister's mentality about these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the amendment, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD:

The only thing we can do is stand up and be counted — government

backbenchers too. You have your opportunity now — if we can get to the

vote on the amendment — to show that you truly aren't either trained

seals or seals in training.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again,

hon. members, the committee and this parliament cannot accept those

types of references, and I would caution all members about references

to any member of this House that are unparliamentary or discourteous.

MR. NICOLSON:

One thing that I think might help some of the members opposite in

formulating their decision on this is the fact that there is a ray of

hope in this world which is engaged in mad inflation. In this

technological area that we're debating under this vote there happens to

be a deflationary trend. I gather from some of the things the minister

said that some of the types of things he's intending to go forward with

are going to require investments in hardware; but that hardware is

coming down in price, not going up in price — if they are making wise

investment and really know what they're doing — unless they're buying

old surplus IBM equipment that IBM wants to go, stuff that runs at a

snail's pace compared to modern technology. Just as an example,

line-printers which two years ago were selling for $2,500 today sell

for as low as $500, and you get a superior product: higher quality and

density on the print head, better character speeds and more reliable

rates, whether through a parallel interface or through a serial

interface. The minister shakes his head. I don't think he knows what is

being pulled over his head. If a person wants to keep up with the

technology, the whole area of computers is becoming more and more

economical.

For that reason I'm sure that members opposite

might reconsider their position of just saying see no evil, hear no

evil and think no evil. If they don't think and don't look they won't

have to make any kind of a rational decision; they can on just make a

decision based on faith. The fact is that if this government is truly

looking at decentralizing the ministry it can, in changing its whole

investment in computer hardware and software, probably save itself

tremendous amounts. We should not just be seeing a level of expenditure

equal to last year; we could probably even realize savings. When you

look at the price of all kinds of computer equipment, whether you're

looking at terminals — which have come crashing down in price; they've

been cut in half and cut in half again in terms of terminals, printers

and memory.... The price of any type of memory system you want to

look at has come

[ Page 4786 ]

plummeting

down in price in the last two or three years — a tenfold decrease at

least. The price of mass storage and mass storage technology has come

plummeting down in price. Yet we're looking at something here which

says that we have to go in one year from spending $2.9 million to

spending an additional $3.2 million.

I don't know what

you're going to do with all the equipment that you buy. And there is no

guarantee.... Can the minister get up and tell us that he's even

going to spend all of last year's budget? At the rate he's going, there

is going to be a surplus there. We're convinced that this is one more

area where you have padded the budget in order to overestimate

expenditures along with your companion program of underestimating

revenues. I urge members on both sides of this House to vote in favour

of this amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Mr. King requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 105 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE

AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 206: minister's office, $147,400.

HON. MR. McGEER: Should it be your wish, Mr. Chairman, I could make

some comments on the budget as a whole and on the way in which the opposition

have addressed themselves to the detailed estimates so far. But in the hope

that we're going to concentrate on relevant debate and on the important

issues before us, for the benefit of the members opposite I would like to give

a brief review of some of the highlights of the activities of this ministry

during the past year and the implications of the estimates which are before

the House at the present time.

the universities area, Mr. Chairman, you should note once more a very

generous increase in the funding which has been provided by the Premier

and the Treasury Board, something which I know the universities of

British Columbia are very grateful to receive. They're grateful to

receive it for two reasons. One is that the increase in funds during

this current year is more generous than for any other province in

Canada. Because these increases are generous, the universities of our

province have deemed it appropriate to keep their tuition fees

extremely low. It's their privilege and right to set the fees at

whatever level they choose. That's the way our institutions are given

autonomy in British Columbia. It's through this method that they are

able to enrich to any degree they deem fit the basic programs which are

funded by the taxpayers of B.C. So we find that the fees in B.C. are

the lowest in all of Canada, with the exception of Quebec, and that

they now represent barely 10 percent of the total costs of running the

institution — which, I might add, is down from 38 percent when I was a

student at university.

The students in this province get a

marvellous deal compared with their counterparts across Canada and in

most jurisdictions of the world. Our students are particularly favoured

in B.C. because of this. I think it's fair to observe that no country

in the world provides, overall, a greater proportion of its resources

for post-secondary education than does Canada. And at the present time,

no province in Canada is providing more for its post-secondary students

than is B.C.

With respect to the science portion of this

portfolio, you will note that provision is made for grants to be

awarded by the Science Council for projects in British Columbia that

will improve knowledge and skills in this province in areas

particularly related to our special opportunities on this Pacific

coast, and that the bias that has been provided as guidelines by the

government is towards industrial projects. In other words, we regard

this scientific grant money as an investment in the skills and industry

of the future. Canada has set as a national target for research and

development 1.5 percent of its gross domestic product, a level which

would place us in the same general range as Greece, Spain and Portugal

— but not in the same category as Ireland — and certainly far behind

nations such as Germany, Japan, the United States and the advanced

countries of western Europe. So even with the goals that have been

belatedly set by the national government as achievable by the

mid-1980s, we're going to drag far behind the western nations.

Therefore we must do our part here in B.C. to see that this part of

Canada, at least, is well served by the scientific skills that provide

the basis for the growth industries of tomorrow. We have undertaken one

or two special projects which we think will be of benefit in the fairly

short run to the people of Canada and to this province. One of these

was the announcement by the Premier of British Columbia that the

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation shares held by the

province would be turned over to the Terry Fox Medical Research

Foundation, the benefits of which would be used to further medical

discovery in British Columbia and perhaps other parts of the world.

There is no greater gift that an advanced country can make to

underdeveloped countries than that of medical discovery. It is perhaps

worth observing in this regard that more people are alive in the world

today as a result of the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best than

there are Canadians. That single Canadian medical discovery, perhaps

the most spectacular in our history, has conferred life itself upon

more people on this planet today than there are citizens of our nation.

These are

[ Page

4787 ]

the dimensions which medical discovery can bring, the benefits which can flow from wise and useful investment.

One

of the activities that will be undertaken by the Terry Fox Medical

Research Foundation will be to support the activities of a newly formed

company in British Columbia, Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,

which will undertake the manufacture and supplying of the world's most

sought after drug, interferon. To give you some idea of the current

value of interferon, it is estimated to be worth between $10 billion

and $20 billion per pound. The world's production last year was less

than one one-hundredth of a gram, and probably fewer than 200 people in

the world have so far been treated with what many hope will be the

miracle drug of the century. It's too early to determine the ultimate

medical benefits conferred by this particular agent, but we will be

undertaking clinical trials in Canada in conjunction with the United

Kingdom, the United States and Japan in an attempt to determine the

medical benefits. Because of the purification plant we will initially

build in British Columbia, and because of the commitment to build a

full-scale plant if it proves to be a useful agent, those who take

part

in these clinical trials can be assured that those supplies will be

available for Canadians from now into the future.

Later on

today, the chief clinical scientist, Dr. Karl Priestman, will be

arriving in British Columbia to bring us up to date on his experiences

in using this particular material in the United Kingdom and to guide us

in setting the ground rules for our clinical investigations here in

Canada.

Another project we are attempting to further here in

British Columbia is the utilization of natural gas in automobiles.

Members know that the Science ministry automobile itself is equipped to

run on duel fuel. We will be holding a world conference next September

on compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel for automobiles. We

will have on display some automobiles which we believe are those of the

future, incorporating some of the advances made as a result of the

research group that's been at work for the past year at UBC.

I'd

like to remind members of what the stakes are if technology can be

improved to the point where this becomes a widely used automotive fuel.

We will be spending in the next decade — if something is not done —

somewhere in the order of $70 billion to bring in oil that we would not

require if even a substantial minority of our automobiles were to run

on methane rather than on gasoline. We could become totally

self-sufficient in Canada in terms of our current production of oil if

about one-third of our automobiles were to convert — keeping in mind

that those which will convert first are fleets that travel the greatest

distance and therefore consume the most fuel.

We anticipate

that before the year is out there will be public fuelling stations for

compressed natural gas operating in British Columbia, as they are now

operating in New Zealand. We anticipate that there will be several

fleets of automobiles converting — using today's technology, not

tomorrow — as demonstration vehicles here in this province. We have

been in contact with governments around the world who, like us, are

interested in taking advantage of substantial reserves of methane as a

source of fuel rather than to have themselves at the mercy of the OPEC

nations.

There is debate on the exact current reserves of

methane in British Columbia and in other parts of the world, but our

supplies are assured well into the next century on the basis of what

has been discovered to date. We anticipate in British Columbia

and in other provinces of Canada that we've not really begun to

discover the resources of natural gas that are available to us from

conventional gas wells. If and when that source of supply ever ran out,

one can produce methane readily from coal, and our supplies of coal in

the northeast region alone are there for some 3,000 years. So we know

we'll never run out of methane, because we can always make it from our

coal.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

would like to see us utilizing more of our coal here in British

Columbia instead of sending it, as we do now, directly overseas.

MR. LAUK: You said 3,000 years. Will you stake your seat on it?

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure. You and I and Lazarus Long will be around to settle the bet.

Mr.

Chairman, if and when that supply ever were to run out — 3,000 years

from now — you should know that methane can be readily produced from

biomass — I'll give you another word for that: sewage, plant life and

wood waste — so that this is not only an abundant source but it's a

renewable source. Therefore all that we need to do is to make a

commitment to have those oil-consuming vehicles and other machinery

that we have now committed to OPEC oil run on our cheap and abundant

natural gas.

I'd like to say a word or two about

communications. We had a demonstration satellite-receiving dish on the

lawn of the Legislature last year. We hope that dish will spawn

thousands of children around our province, because we have in British

Columbia an open skies policy. We have not had success in attempting to

persuade our national government that an open skies policy is good for

Canada. Nevertheless, when the Minister of Communications for Canada

was reluctant to meet with his counterparts in the provinces last fall

to discuss this and the matter of cable regulation, we agreed to host

the ministers of communications across Canada at an entirely provincial

meeting. At that meeting, and in a subsequent meeting in Quebec City to

which also were invited federal officials, we laid down an

interprovincial policy on communications to which all of the provinces

of Canada now subscribe. There will be regular meetings of the

Communications ministers of Canada to develop and refine a policy which

the provinces, collectively representing all the people of Canada, deem

to be in the best interests of communications in our nation.

probably comes as no surprise to the members of this assembly that the

cornerstone of this policy is that communications should be a

provincial and not a federal responsibility. The exceptions to this

were very clearly spelled out last summer in the constitutional

discussions, which agreed that certain limited areas should be under

federal control, such as national television networks, the awarding of

band frequencies that cross provincial jurisdictions, the establishment

of international contracts and agreements, the setting of national

standards for telecommunications equipment, the launching of satellites

— all of these are appropriately federal responsibilities. But if it

comes down to things which are much closer to home, like regulating

cable and deciding whether or not a cable operator may put a burglar

alarm system into the city of Victoria, that's a local service which

serves local people. Therefore it should not be in the hands of the

federal CRTC in that huge building of theirs in Hull,

[ Page 4788 ]

Quebec,

which is remote from the people of Canada, with their hearings

frequently held in Ontario to decide a local matter of jurisdiction in

one of the smaller towns here in British Columbia. It's to end this

kind of nonsense that the Communications ministers of Canada, in

defence of the citizens of this country, have taken matters into their

own hands and established a common policy.

Just as we

believe, with the Prime Minister, that the state should not be in the

bedrooms of the nation, so we believe it should stay out of the

television rooms. If people want to put up their antennae and receive

anything they like in the way of entertainment or education, that

should be their right, without some federal snoop with running shoes

knocking on the door and asking what you're listening to and in which

direction you've got your antenna pointed. This too is a common policy

of the provinces across Canada, with the exception of Saskatchewan,

which wants to own all satellite receiving dishes. So we have said:

"God bless them in Saskatchewan." If they want to control everything

there, that is certainly their right within their province. But they

subscribe to every other province being able to manage its

communications in the way it deems fit.

We have also

established in British Columbia a new television network owned and

operated by the people of British Columbia for the people of British

Columbia and their education. I refer, of course, to the Knowledge

Network of the West, seen in Vancouver and Victoria on Channel 18, and

on the VHF frequencies of many of our interior communities. We would

like this to be universally available to the people of British

Columbia, because it's beamed by satellite and therefore the signal is

reaching every single home in our province. Unfortunately, not

everybody has an antenna to receive it. But we hope to develop our

electronic highway in the province so that people can receive our own

Knowledge Network, and at the same time be able to receive other

satellite signals that might interest them as well as our own

educational offering.

Unlike some educational television

networks — and I think particularly of Ontario's — ours is concentrating

on hard educational delivery. In other words, it is our intent that

people be able to take their adult basic education, their vocational

training and their university degrees right there in their

living rooms. The Knowledge Network of the West brings education to the

people. Instead of requiring people to come and attend our

institutions, leave their homes and communities, give up their jobs and

pay our fees, however nominal, they can get it all delivered right into

their living rooms through our Knowledge Network.

All of

these marvellous advances are made possible because of the sound

overall policies established by the Social Credit government: the

support and encouragement of the business side of our province, the

furthering of investment, the confidence in the future. When you've got

those kinds of wise fiscal policies that have been practised by this

free enterprise government, then it becomes possible to develop these

magnificent services; to be able to give to our students here in

British Columbia the most generous post-secondary facilities in all the

nation; to be able to provide a Knowledge Network which will give

education to every single citizen; to be able to invest in future

developments of a scientific kind; to be able to encourage medical

discovery, which we hope will benefit the whole world. All of these

things stem from wise fiscal policy. The basis from which all of this

starts is the overall budget. Right now the people of British Columbia

are receiving their dividend for supporting Social Credit.

MR. LAUK:

The hon. House Leader has indicated that perhaps at this stage an

adjournment is in order so that people can get an early lunch. Before

doing so I want to make one comment before canvassing some of the

aspects raised by the minister and dealing with some of our views with

respect to the ministry.

I congratulate the minister for

standing in his place and giving us a precise overview of the

activities in his ministry, and also through it, indirectly, an

expression of his philosophy of post-secondary education, research and

where we're all going in that regard. The minister has indicated that

it was through sound Social Credit fiscal policy. I suppose, because of

his experience and his perception, he knows that his own side of the

House at any rate is comprised of individuals whose legs can withstand

an infinite amount of pulling. I think it's not anything to do with the

fiscal programs of the Social Credit government. They are indeed a

disaster. They have imposed upon the people of British Columbia a

horrendous tax burden. They've imposed upon the people of British

Columbia a monumental provincial debt through its Crown corporations

and agencies. They've imposed upon British Columbia the most backward

government in the history of Canada. But nobody's perfect, Mr. Chairman.

Though

I want to throw a bouquet to the minister and say that some of the

advances, which the opposition accept as being sound and worthy of

pursuit — such as the Knowledge Network, irrespective of my early

remarks about that program; such as the research programs that are

being developed; and such as the position of the government with

respect to communications — all of these are there solely because of

the minister as an individual, his personal courage and his effort to

drag the rest of his cabinet into the twentieth century insofar as

science is concerned. I think he's fooling his own side when he says

that, and he's being altogether too modest. It's he who has brought

these things about, and they will collapse when he leaves public

office, unless and until a New Democratic Party is elected to office.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

He knows when to go, Mr. Chairmanl, I say through you to the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). One of the tragedies

of the political career of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs is that he's finally arrived as a minister of the Crown on the

very day his government is going to collapse. I've always said that

Peter had superb timing.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:18 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada