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)

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 9 –– 6571

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Richmond

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $664,544.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I thought maybe the Premier wanted to say a few words

this morning; I certainly would like to do so. I want to talk to the

Premier about some of the issues concerning which I think he has to

take a clear leadership role as far as the province is concerned,

because the ultimate responsibility for what his government does

certainly lies with him. I know that a lot of the criticisms which have

been directed against various members of his cabinet and his

government, in terms of their failure to make decisions based on the

needs of people, are criticisms that the Premier himself should

probably address himself to. Because he makes the final decisions, he

has to take the ultimate responsibility for the fact that his

government is perceived to be unconcerned about people and uninterested

primarily in them. So there are a number of issues I want to raise this

morning specifically with the Premier.

As the Premier knows,

the report which the ombudsman prepared for the House raised the issue

of the Ministry of Human Resources discriminating against welfare

recipients because of their age. If someone applies to the Ministry of

Human Resources for assistance, the person gets a different income

based on whether their age is 31 or over 31. A number of people aged 31

and under have not been able to understand this discriminatory practice

on the part of that ministry, so they filed a complaint with the

ombudsman. After doing a lot of research on this, and questioning the

Ministry of Human Resources, the ombudsman finally completed his

report. I'm raising this because, as I said before, the Premier has to

take ultimate responsibility for decisions made by his government. The

ombudsman said: "In my opinion the ministry" — meaning the Ministry of

Human Resources — "failed to give adequate reasons for isolating this

age group as one with less need for support money. I found that the

regulation in question was improperly discriminatory. I believe the

theory of mobility misses the real question: does a 30-year-old need

less money for food than a 31-year-old when both are on income

assistance?"

I am raising this question with the Premier, because I would like the Premier

to explain to me whether he as the head of his government believes that a 30-year-old

needs less money for food, housing and transportation because a 30-year-old old

is continually looking for jobs and has to have more money for transportation

and for general needs than a 31-year-old does. The ombudsman does not believe

that to be the case. Most people do not believe that to be the case. Since I

have not been able to get a reasonable response from the ministry which perpetuates

this discriminatory policy, and the ombudsman has not been able to get a satisfactory

response from the ministry which perpetuates this discriminatory policy, I would

like to ask the Premier if he can explain why a 30-year-old is forced to live

on less than a 31-year-old when both of those people have to depend on the

Ministry of Human Resources for income assistance.

The

second thing I'd like to say to the Premier is this: has the Premier

any understanding of the implications for the housing needs of people

on fixed and minimum incomes of the development of B.C. Place and what

it's going to do to the housing needs of people presently living in

that area? Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm raising this under the Premier's

estimates because I believe that the Premier again ultimately has to be

the one to take responsibility for the decisions made by his ministers.

Since I have not been able to get a reasonable or satisfactory answer

to some of these questions directly from the ministers, I'm appealing

to the Premier himself.

For example, has the Premier read

the study which was prepared by a student at the school of social work

at UBC on the impact of the development of the high-density housing

slated for B.C. Place, and what it's going to do to the people on

minimum and fixed incomes presently living in that area? If he is aware

of that, has the Premier made any alternative plans for these people?

realize it's hard for the Premier to concentrate when the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) keeps whispering in his

ear, but nonetheless, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You just want me to whisper in your ear and give you a bit of a hand over there.

MS. BROWN: Not when I'm discussing business, but if it's pleasure at some other time, sure.

fact, Mr. Chairman, it has been clearly indicated that the housing

planned for this area is going to be luxury accommodation. It's going

to be accommodation that the people presently living in that area will

not be able to afford. They're going to be displaced. I wonder if the

Premier has taken that into account in the planning and development of

B.C. Place.

Can the Premier also explain to me why a piece

of legislation introduced in this House a number of years ago, dealing

specifically with income assistance rates and GAIN, with a special

section —

section 8 — which indicated that those rates should be

indexed.... Why has that

section of the act never been proclaimed?

Everything else feels the impact of inflation and to protect itself

against inflation is being indexed. But that particular

section of the

act which deals with indexing the GAIN rates has never been proclaimed.

I wonder if the Premier can respond to that.

This is the

last opportunity that I'm going to have to talk about the International

Year of the Disabled with the Premier and specifically to say to him

that since the beginning of this year every opportunity that I've had I

have raised the concerns of one particular group of disabled people on

the floor of this House without success. The Premier is the court of

last resort; this is the last place that this issue can be raised. I

want to go over it very carefully with the Premier because he is the

only person left who can act on this particular issue.

the lower mainland there are over 4,000 — close to 5,000 — people who

are disabled by virtue of the fact that they are blind; they cannot

see. They are totally dependent on public transportation. They cannot

drive cars, because they cannot see. They cannot ride bicycles, because

they cannot see. They cannot use skateboards, because they cannot see.

They cannot sail a boat. They have no other means of trans-

[ Page 6572 ]

portation,

of getting from one place to another, except via the public transit

system. That is the only means of transportation that they have. By

virtue of that fact they receive a bus pass which allows them to travel

on the public system.

The nearly 5,000 blind people in the

lower mainland have been asking that the government continue a practice

first initiated something like ten years ago, which said that anywhere

in the lower mainland — whether it is Victoria or Vancouver — where

they happen to find themselves, that pass will be honoured. In other

words, because they live in Vancouver doesn't mean that the pass can

only be used in Vancouver; because they live in Victoria doesn't mean

that the pass can only be used in Victoria. That pass can be used on

any of the public transportation systems, either in Vancouver or in

Victoria. This is known as transferability.

For some reason

or other, when the decision was made to remove responsibility for those

blind passes out of the Ministry of Human Resources.... I support that

decision, because I don't think that the passes have anything to do

with the giving of income assistance or charity or welfare; it was a

straight transportation issue. When it was transferred by the now

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to the Urban

Transit Authority, they decided that those passes were no longer going

to be good on both of the systems. In fact, people who lived in

Victoria would have a bus pass that would only be good in Victoria;

people who lived in Vancouver would have a bus pass that would only be

good in Vancouver.

One of the reasons given for this was the

cost: it would be too expensive to continue to make the passes

transferable. When we examined the cost we discovered that the cost was

going to be $25,000 — that's all. Surely when the Premier looks at the

size of the budget which his government administers — a budget which

some of his ministers have earmarked for office furniture, advertising

and travel and a budget that has been set aside to hire people to

ensure that he never forgets to powder his face when he goes on TV —

surely the Premier cannot justify withholding $25,000 from this

particular group of people in our community and at the same time tell

us that his government cares about people and that his government is

honouring this year as the International Year of the Disabled.

know that it's going to be very easy for the Premier to stand up and

say that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is

responsible for the issue that I raised about discrimination based on

age in receipt of income assistance. I know that the Premier is going

to be able to stand up and say that the Minister of Human Resources is

responsible for GAIN legislation. When the minister decides to index

it, it will be indexed. I know that the minister is going to be able to

stand up and say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible

for bus passes, and it is up to that minister to see to it that the

money is found either through his ministry, through the Ministry of

Human Resources or some other source in order to ensure that people who

are disabled by virtue of being blind continue to enjoy a privilege and

a right which they have had for the past ten years.

But I am

raising these issues specifically with the Premier, Mr. Chairman, not

to have him refer them back to his ministers, but to have the Premier

take responsibility for these issues. I am raising these issues with

the Premier as the chairperson and head of his government, and of all

decisions made by his government, and as the chief executive officer of

this province. I am going directly to the Premier with these major

concerns. Again, very quickly, discrimination based on age in terms of

income assistance.... How do you justify that a person at the age of 30

needs less on which to live than a person at the age of 31? How can the

Premier justify that? How can the Premier justify that nearly 5,000

people in the lower mainland are being deprived of the only source of

transportation they have? As the executive officer who administers a

budget in the billions, he cannot find $25,000 in this the

International Year of Disabled Persons to ensure that those people can

travel on the buses — their only source of transportation. How can the

Premier explain that in order to protect them against inflation, the

section of the act which says income assistance should be indexed has

never been proclaimed?

How can the Premier deal with those questions? I would appreciate getting a response from him on those issues.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Obviously these are areas that if they weren't canvassed under the

Human Resources estimates, because they deal particularly and almost

totally — with the exception of one or two points — with the

responsibilities of the Ministry of Human Resources.... I'm flattered

by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds suggesting that the Premier can

administer every program of every ministry of government. The

opportunity during estimates is to present a detailed examination of

the estimates, ministry by ministry. These are the type of questions

that can be placed.

However, I don't mind responding to some

of the points the member makes, because it's true that the government

has great concern for the people of this province, whether they're

disabled in the Year of the Disabled or in any other year. They're not

just our concern in this year; they're our concern in every year.

That's why this government has done a number of things and has

introduced a number of programs to aid the disabled in this province.

They have special problems. We understand that. It varies from person

to person, depending on the disability.

The member

particularly brings forward the difficulty with transportation. I don't

agree with the statement the member makes that the only form of

transportation available to them is buses or public transportation. I

know full well that many also have a means of private transportation

available to them, through their families and others. But I do know

that public transit is important to many of them, so let me deal with

transit and what we've done in this province. I think it's important,

not only for the disabled but for every British Columbian.

For

years in this province we've had a lot of talk about the needs of

public transit for the economical movement of people, to relieve

congestion on highways and to conserve energy away from the

single-passenger use of the private passenger automobile. We've had

transit needs in this province not just in the area that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds represents — the lower mainland or Point Grey or

Burnaby-Edmonds — but important ones all over this province. There are

many communities that require some sort of public transportation.

Until

now there has never been a transportation policy relating to this in

British Columbia. Historically, Hydro inherited the bus system when

they took over B.C. Electric in these areas that were part of their

franchise agreements, and was left to subsidize, out of electric rates

charged all over the province, the buses for just two regions: greater

Vancouver

[ Page

6573 ]

and

the Victoria region. Obviously, this wasn't fair to the many other

communities and citizens that purchased Hydro, and through their bills

paid for transit systems in this area. It obviously wasn't rational to

have an energy-producing company responsible for transportation;

there's no relationship between the two mandates. Therefore, Mr.

Chairman, we set up the Urban Transit Authority. We set it up on

another premise as well. For many years local governments and

politicians have been asked for representation on developing transit

needs and participating not only in the decisions but in the

responsibility for transit, region by region, in this province. To

accommodate this, the government set up the UTA. As it is set up we

have the richest sharing with municipal government of provincial

government financial support that you can find in this country, much

richer than in the previously largest-sharing province that I am aware

of — there may be others — and that was Ontario, whose share from the

provincial side has been decreasing rather than increasing. There is

now roughly a two-thirds contribution from the provincial government to

both capital costs on all public transit and to their operating

deficit; because only a small portion of the transit costs are taken

from the fare box. They are subsidized very heavily.

Outside

of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria we now have over 22 transit

systems, and I'm proud to say that not only is that type of transit

available to those people in those communities, but for the first time

we have transit facilities particularly aimed at the disabled outside

of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. Buses for the disabled have

recently been put into service in Kamloops; I think the number has gone

from two to four. The first two buses for the disabled in the

Kelowna-Westbank area were introduced recently. Disabled services bus

transportation has also, I believe, been introduced into the Prince

George area. Those buses are an improvement on the old bus that did not

easily accommodate the disabled person. Instead of a rear-loading they

have a side-loading vehicle in the Kelowna area now.

Mr. Chairman, you will find this very interesting: through other programs in

the Ministry of Human Resources the provincial subsidy to the buses for the

disabled is 90 percent. That means that the provincial government is assisting

all these communities, over and above their local share and the fare box, to

90 percent for disabled buses. I'm glad to see that those who have always

concentrated their concern on transit and the disabled only in Vancouver can

appreciate that this problem is all over this province. Not only has the development

of UTA brought transit to many people; it is also concentrating on greater assistance

for the disabled.

When we set up the UTA with local participation and heavy provincial

subsidy.... The UTA is a provincial body, with representation from the

various transit organizations. The provincial government is not

controlling it; it is local representation. This year I believe the

chairman of the UTA comes from the Kelowna area; I think it's Fred

Macklin. Where some transit regions have gone beyond the support that

we now give for the disabled, to deal with specific categories such as

the blind, it is possible for UTA to have a reciprocal agreement with

them — it is their decision. We encourage them to do that. Certainly

there's no financial penalty for doing that, because of the very rich

share the province already provides to the transit system. While I

would be pleased to pass along the member's concern to the chairman of

the transit authority, I'm sure they are able to effect those types of

agreements between the various transit systems that come under the

general direction of the Urban Transit Authority — which now consists

of 22 systems, in addition to two large bus systems.

Because

I know that transit is of concern to the member, let me also say that

in addition to buses in those areas and special buses for the disabled,

this government has introduced into the area of greatest need — because

we're making it financially feasible for the districts — with some

leadership from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, additional options

for transit in the greater Vancouver area. One option is a commuter

train that will operate through Coquitlam out towards the constituency

of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), which will be in operation

within the next 18 months. It will certainly provide great assistance

over and above the ability of buses. The commuter train will run on the

tracks presently utilized by the railways which run into Vancouver. We

have also made a decision — again with a generous subsidy from the

provincial government to UTA — to put an automated light rapid transit

system into greater Vancouver. The first routes will run to New

Westminster, with optional extensions to Surrey and Richmond as future

considerations. The automated light rapid transit will be quieter than

traditional rapid transit, and thus we will be able to utilize public

space already dedicated or alienated around stations that require more

width for density accommodation, for either housing or other matters

that the member questions. It means we won't be alienating a traffic

corridor; in fact, we will get higher utilization at strategic points,

using the air rights that will assist in the development of

accommodation for people. I believe they will be located right in the

area in which they can also use the transportation facilities. That

type of proper long-term planning is under consideration, It was first

suggested by this government before the decision was made for ALRT

also want to say that I'm pleased that we in British Columbia can use

Canadian technology. It's true that many people said that we should not

buy Canadian technology, that we should be purchasing European

technology of existing transit systems and looking internationally for

alternatives, because the transit technology we're purchasing has one

demonstration project developed in Ontario and one in Hamilton at the

present time, and the price might be slightly higher because of the

higher costs of Canadians developing it. While we're great Canadians,

we also have an obligation to get the best value for a dollar.

The

reason we were enticed into looking at the Canadian technology

developed in Ontario by the Ontario government's transit development

agency was that the federal government had promised a $31 million grant

to the transit agency of the Ontario government for the second use of

that transit in a viable way in a part of Canada other than Ontario. So

they were able to reduce that price. The Minister of Human Resources

and others negotiating for the UTA were able to get the federal

government to increase their subsidy to the Ontario government and

Ontario transit technology to $60 million rather than $31 million — I

believe that is the figure — and also to make it part of the agreement

that we would get approximately 60 percent of the fabrication of the

system within British Columbia, with the opportunity to sell this

technology in the future. It means we will be developing not only a

modern transit system; we'll be creating industry and jobs in the

private sector in British Columbia. I believe the first contract has

already been awarded to a small firm in Richmond. Also we were able to

buy Canadian. That serves a number of needs.

[ Page 6574 ]

I think with the development of the UTA in those areas, in transit for

the disabled, and for all in all regions, we've made substantial

progress. If she hasn't talked to the proper authority, I will

certainly take the member's concerns to the head of the UTA, because

they already have a generous provincial, financial assistance to

undertake a number of options, which they're doing as a special thing

with buses for the handicapped or the disabled that are being placed

around the province.

The member also mentioned British

Columbia Place. British Columbia Place is a downtown redevelopment

project of the government of British Columbia. I'm certain that I don't

have to remind the member of the long-sought-after redevelopment of

that north side of False Creek by various city councils. It was

apparent to everyone that they could zone and rezone and talk all they

wanted, but there would never be any redevelopment. That area was going

to continue to expand into a second-class industrialized area, as it

was, with some industry — unsightly. It would never have been put to

its highest and best use. As it developed, it would become more

cost-prohibitive for anyone to develop that area. It has to be

developed in a reasonable but also in a financially responsible way.

Obviously it was beyond the ability and the competence of the city

councils of Vancouver to deal with the problem. It was obviously never

going to be undertaken by the private sector because of their inability

to come to any agreement with the various councils in the city of

Vancouver. It was left to the province of British Columbia to make a

decision to undertake this tremendous redevelopment.

It will

be the largest major downtown urban renewal project, as I've been told,

in North America. The scope and scale of it is astronomical, because of

the size and the key location of the area. As a provincial project it

will combine a number of things. The first project already undertaken —

in what must be a speed record for the development of the concept, the

undertaking of the study, the drawing of the plans and the letting of

the contracts for a large, major public project — is the building of an

amphitheatre on the site adjacent to the Connaught Bridge. That will

utilize part of the site. Not all of the property is acquired yet that

will be needed for the eventual development. Some is still under

negotiation with B.C. Hydro, and some is needed. As a viable project to

house Transpo the project could be stopped — particularly the Transpo

side by the city of Vancouver failing to make available the city-owned

land that needs a lot of financial improvement and infill along the

water line and would be an ideal place for additional housing. So I

would hope that we can get an early decision from the city of Vancouver

on whether they're going to allow Transpo to go ahead, whether that

plant is going to be available to be part of the B.C. Place

development, and at what cost, because B.C. Place will have to

undertake tremendous financial cost to improve that land and clean up

the waterfront immediately in front of the existing cement plant. It

also involves some additional private property that can complete the

sweep around False Creek.

Obviously, then, a number of uses

are planned. What is now scaled for B.C. Place is to, in a realistic

way, put 10,000 units into the development.

MS. BROWN: Luxury units.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "Luxury units." You may be more

familiar with luxury accommodation than I am, but I would say that when

you put in that number of units it will have to be both esthetically

well done and well done to house people. People are people. If you

develop a unit that someone can purchase as a condominium or lease or

rent, they move and make space available somewhere else. That's part of

the continuing development of accommodation. Part of the system that

encourages people to want to continually upgrade their own dwellings is

that they can move from area to area, house to house, and improve by

their own efforts. There's no incentive if you work hard to pay for

your house and someone gets one right next door for nothing.

The

member says "luxury." I say no, it's not going to be luxury. It's going

to be good, average accommodation that, I understand, will be made

available to British Columbians who will live in downtown Vancouver.

There will be no discrimination for anyone. Those who so wish can

undertake a transaction to live there, I would guess, under the same

terms as anyone else. The member is maybe suggesting: will there be any

special privilege for one group in society to live there? I say not by

B.C. Place and their development.

What there can be, because our housing programs.... If

you're looking for rental assistance or purchase assistance, those

programs are already available under the provincial and federal

governments. If the city of Vancouver wants to target some special

assistance program on tenants, we could cooperate. That could be a

program that could be developed separately, but that wouldn't be

developed by the B.C. Place development itself. It's the government's

role to deal with people, and to deal with people who may need

assistance in various areas, but the B.C. Place mandate is to negotiate

what will be an esthetically and well planned redevelopment in the

heart of Vancouver.

Should any social program provide any

assistance in those areas, that will not come from them but from

governments; that's their traditional source, and that is the only

proper way to plan it and make sure that the program is equitable. The

government could not, in all conscience — you've got to remember that

there is more than Vancouver in British Columbia — have target programs

for just one community or one part of one city. It has to be a program

available to every British Columbian, so that the same opportunity is

available in every part of this province, so that you don't have a

hidden program within the development of that project. If there's going

to be any assistance, it will be through proper public programs, either

existing or developed, that will assist people as individuals.

hope that clarifies that point for the member. I think I've covered

most of the points I'm able to deal with that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds raised.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I

want to thank the Premier for answering the questions that I asked as

well as a number of questions that I didn't ask. I appreciate that.

However, I specifically addressed myself to the plight of 5,000 people

in the lower mainland who are disabled by virtue of the fact that they

are blind. This issue was raised with the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). As a matter of fact, the Minister of Human

Resources herself issued a press release in January of this year in

which she said: "I am appalled at the stand that's been taken on this

issue." It is not a Human Resources issue. I thought I made that point

clear

[ Page

6575 ]

with the Premier. It's a buck-passing issue that's going on between

the UTA and the government.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm just asking the Premier whether we can have a commitment

that that $25,000 is going to be found to ensure that those bus passes

are made transferable on behalf of these nearly 5,000 lower mainland

people. That is all I'm asking, not for a speech on urban transit or

anything else. Surely a government who can find $105,000 to take a

ferry trip with Premiers up the river or up the stream, or up wherever

they're going, can find $25,000, because the GVRD says that they're not

going to be able to give this service unless the government comes up

with $25,000 more. That's all I'm asking. From somewhere in this

massive budget can $25,000 be found to ensure that the 5,000 people on

the lower mainland who are blind can use this bus pass transferability

privilege, which apparently they've had for something close to 40

years. That's all.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member talks about bus pass transferability, and the fact is that

they've had nowhere to transfer to until we set up the UTA and put bus

systems in other parts of the province. The member might not consider a

bus system in Chetwynd — because perhaps you've never been there — or

in Dawson Creek or Kelowna or Kamloops as important, but those bus

systems have just been developed.

Within the funding we

already provide to the UTA, Mr. Chairman, there is generous assistance,

both in transit sharing and in sharing for the disabled, and they're

able to achieve that within the funding we already provide. Because it

seems that the member has not taken the trouble to go to the proper

authorities in the UTA, I will do that on her behalf, and take that

time on behalf of those people. Apparently this is not a new concern of

hers, but one that I will be willing to direct to the proper

authorities, recognizing that we have a minister, and also we have a

UTA and a board of directors, and I think we even have a representative

from the area which she represents in the provincial House, and remind

them that they have the opportunity with the very generous funding the

province already provides.

The member went on to mention that somehow there's some tremendous subsidy

from the people of B.C., that because the governments of this country, on a

number of issues — and some of them will not be just the economics or constitution

of the country but will be on the social issues facing the people; some of the

Premiers' conference, which goes a long way to meeting the needs of Canadian

people, that will be held in this province this year as it is every ten years

— that somehow any money allocated to the sponsoring, when it's our turn

for that conference, is a ripoff and being taken from those who are in need

in this province. I want to tell the member that that is not the case. British

Columbia has the responsibility every ten years to host the Premiers' conference.

Obviously when you get Premiers and ministers together in that type of conference,

a lot of solutions for a lot of people are found. I think it is a major investment

for people that interprovincial and governmental relations are a major feature

of this country. There may be those who don't understand how the country

works, and don't want it to work. There may be those whose commitment to

centralism would have those decisions made by Ottawa. Certainly I can understand

why that member doesn't think an interprovincial meeting should take place.

Because I witnessed at the recent national convention of the NDP that a number

of members in this province are not prepared to support the resources that belong

to the people in this province. They want them turned over to the central government.

Obviously that member, Mr. Chairman, would not see any useful reason.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier has the floor. There will be ample opportunity. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with a number of subjects in my estimates,

and one of them is to respond to areas that I believe have been opened

up by the member, in a very derogatory way, to display the attitude

which she has to the other provinces. Now obviously it's their own

business if they want to attack one of their own, the Premier of

Saskatchewan, at their convention. If they want to leave him abandoned

as the only publicly elected NDP person that is willing to defend the

ownership of the resources by the people of the province.... In

speaking for them he is speaking for the people of British Columbia.

It's very interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that we have finally smoked

out the provincial NDP in British Columbia on constitutional issues. A

group that cares so little about the national debate and concerns in

the nation that they have refused to put any position forward in a

concrete way to resolve the dilemma that is before us.... Not only have

they not provided substantial solutions or alternatives but they have

been sitting quietly, afraid to make a move until they are forced to at

their own convention, in which they supported Trudeau and the Liberals.

What

we have now is a provincial caucus in British Columbia; the New

Democratic Party are supporting the Liberals and Prime Minister Trudeau

in their constitutional proposals. That's what they're doing. They are

not supported by the most rational and eloquent spokesmen for the NDP

in the country — that is, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney,

and the Attorney-General, Roy Romanow, two people who have spent the

last few years not only caring about what happens to this country but

caring about the traditions, conventions and practice of how this

country operates. They have so little feeling for the federal system

that they don't understand that their commitment is not as a provincial

member committed to preserving the provincial rights which we have in

this province. They are willing now, as they offered before and as they

have suggested in resolutions to their convention, to give the

resources that are now owned by and part of the heritage of the young

people of British Columbia over to the central government. It is very

clear that their disdain for meetings of Premiers, whether it includes

the New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan, is not just based in a

partisan way but on their true feelings that this country should be run

from Ottawa and that only Ottawa will make decisions relating to how

our resources will be developed and how the value is distributed.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes or no to bus passes?

MS. BROWN: What about the blind people? Are they going to get bus passes?

[ Page 6576 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I responded to the bus passes issue. The member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who hasn't been here for some time, comes in

and interrupts the debate. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

had no need, in her sarcastic way, to denigrate the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you. We are still in a legislative assembly. I will remind all

hon. members that this is the Legislative Assembly and that debate will

remain courteous, polite and parliamentary.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I agree, Mr. Chairman. I was just so exercised in coming to the defence

of Allan Blakeney that I made a mistake. I withdraw and apologize to

the member.

I must say that the Premiers' conference that

will be held here as part of my responsibility as chairman this year is

very important. The issues in this country may not be important to, the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is asking questions that she neglected

to ask in the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. I have no

knowledge of whether she dealt with those subjects in that period, but

that was the appropriate time.

But I am prepared to talk

about the Premiers' conference and whether the transportation from one

of its locations to another — because it will be both in Vancouver and

Victoria — is a waste of the public's money, as is stated by the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds. Obviously there would be greater disruption to the

transportation system in this province, given that our capital is on an

island and that mass transportation must be undertaken by ferry, if we

were to attempt to move an entire conference, which starts in Victoria

and concludes in Vancouver, on the ferry system from Swartz Bay at the

time the conference is ready and prepared to move, disrupting a

complete sailing, leaving behind people who have lined up to get on

that sailing and leaving people abandoned. It is much easier to plan in

advance and

schedule around this event. To be able to move an entire

conference without disruption to the public, because I must say that

the Ferry Corporation has publicly assured the people, I believe, that

the taking of the ferry for one day to run the conference from Victoria

to Vancouver.... Incidentally, the conference will continue on the

vessel. It has been scheduled around, because they've been given enough

advance notice. They have been able to book those few who requested

accommodation at that time both in advance and after that particular

date. It would be far less disruptive than trying to disrupt the

existing and already heavily taxed summer ferry

schedule from Swartz

Bay to Tsawwassen should we attempt to move a full conference.

don't apologize for that. I say it's good planning. I also say that I

took offence yesterday when the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) said that we were just looking after our friends, as if there was

something wrong when the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

said the other Premiers were our friends. All I've got to say is that

as Canadians, they are our friends. I consider it strange that a member

of the New Democratic Party in this province would find something

ominous in the fact that the Minister of Transportation considers the

duly elected governments and their leaders in all parts of this

conference as friends. They're not friends of just the government;

they're friends of British Columbians, and that's who we represent at

that conference.

Much was made of this issue yesterday by

the opposition. The member has canvassed it again today by including it

in her remarks. I've tried to answer fairly the proper way her

questions could be dealt with. I've tried to give some background and

also the opportunity in the way UTA works and the tremendous things

we've been able to do for the disabled and the opportunities through

the generous provincial funding to aid all classes of disabled, and the

tremendous strides they've made in providing this bus service in a

number of communities of this province and eventually all of them as

the needs arise. I hope that answers the member's query.

MS. BROWN: No, it doesn't answer the member. You have not made a commitment.

I'll defer to my colleague, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll allow debate to reciprocate. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN:

If I'm not permitted to defer to my colleague, then I would just like

to say to the Premier that I want the record to show that on more than

one occasion I have requested on behalf of the nearly 5,000 blind

people in the lower mainland that his government pay $25,000 to ensure

that their bus passes are transferable. He has refused that. Out of a

budget of $6,636,400,000 he has refused to earmark $25,000 so that the

blind people in the lower mainland can have the bus pass

transferability. That's all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The

member may not come to that conclusion. For her own advantage she is

putting the response in her own terms. I did not say we would refuse to

help the disabled in this province. In fact I've said that the ability

is there now under generous government financial assistance for

agreements between the various bus regions in this province and the

UTA. I have said that I am concerned about them, and I will speak to

the UTA on their behalf. They already receive very generous government

assistance in order to undertake transit provision in all regions of

the province and also to meet special needs. So rather than refusing,

I'm saying that the money is there in the existing large amount of

sharing that we have. Rather than disregard these people, I will in the

appropriate way, rather than trying to make political hay out of it in

the Legislature, in a real way go to work with the UTA to see if they

can accommodate them. My goal is not to get a headline over this

situation, but to get something for the people who are disabled and

blind. The appropriate way would be to approach the UTA, who have this

opportunity now to have agreements between transit districts, the UTA

being the provincial authority that is two thirds funded on its deficit

by the provincial government.

I also pointed out during the

debate that this government has additional aid for the disabled in this

province. Where we deal with the buses for the disabled that are now in

a number of districts, the provincial share on the loss is about 90

percent. Rather than leaving the impression, as the member attempted to

do, that this government did not care for the disabled and those who

may be handicapped in this province, in fact we have done more in the

last few years, not only through the Ministry of Human Resources but in

the very

[ Page 6577 ]

establishment

of the UTA, to provide transit systems to the disabled in many

districts in this province that not only didn't have bus systems but

didn't have properly constructed buses tailored to their needs. We make

it financially attractive for that to happen, and if there is a

category in the 24 bus districts within the UTA that should be

encouraged to have some reciprocity, then certainly....

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, having thought over what the Premier

said, I think that he owes the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds and the

Legislature an apology. What he did was unparliamentary. He accused the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds of using this Legislature for political

purposes, surrounding the plight of the blind people. He said that she

was doing it because she was politically motivated in the Legislature,

instead of being concerned about the blind people. That's questioning

her motives. As you know, Mr. Chairman, that's not allowed.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Your point of order is well taken. I will ask the hon. Premier if he

has imputed any improper motive to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No. In my answer I said that I have attempted to deal with it....

Because I care about these people, I have not attempted to use the

issue in a political way. If the member for Prince Rupert feels that he

should take offence on behalf of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is

no longer in this chamber while we're discussing the issue that she

introduced, then I certainly will withdraw any allegation that she is

not honourable or sincere — as we all know her to be in the causes that

she raises in this House from time to time.

I only wanted it

to be very clear to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds — and to the member

for Prince Rupert, who is now fleeing the House — that I didn't like

the impression created by the question, nor the suggestion; nor did I

feel I had to ask for an apology when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

tried to assert that I had refused to care for the blind people we were

discussing in relation to their transit needs. I wanted to make it very

clear that this government, and I as the Premier, have a very great

concern for the people of this province, whether or not they are

handicapped or disabled; and the special concerns of those who are

disabled are of special concern to me.

I find it offensive

that there may be some in society who feel they have a corner on

morality and caring, when in fact this government in the last five and

a half years has done more to assist people, particularly those who

need help in this province, than any government has ever done. When you

want to talk about the development of social programs and assistance to

people.... I have dealt at some length with the assistance to people

that we've given and that was never given before — not by the previous

government or others. That is to deal with transit. I also want to say

about services to people, whether it be in their health care.... This

government has brought in programs that are innovative and are being

looked at by the rest of the country. Let me end the myth that somehow

that noisy little group over there has a corner on morality. They had

an opportunity to be government and I never saw them introduce

dental-care plan in this province — but we did. I never saw them

introduce a shelter aid for the elderly renter, an innovative program

that helps the elderly and doesn't force them into institutions — but

this government did. I never saw them introduce a long-term care and

extended-care program when they were government — but this government

has. I want to tell you....

MR. BARNES: Tell us about your housing policy. What about your housing policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The second member for Vancouver Centre has the nerve to mention

housing. They were the authors of the greatest disaster this province

ever saw: the Housing Corporation. In comparison with what it did, the

private sector, given very little incentive and opportunity, made it

look sick. Housing stock provision has traditionally been and can only

be met by the private sector. I have a great belief in the small

contractors and the ordinary workmen in this province; they have

traditionally provided the housing in all parts of this province, given

the opportunity to continue to get on with the job.

There is

no magical answer in setting up a Crown corporation that can build

houses magically and mythically. It faces the same high costs through

the federal government's policy of high interest rates. It faces the

same problems as the private sector, but it has some problems of its

own. That's its inability to efficiently and expeditiously produce

housing when it's needed. We can witness the example of a housing lot

development undertaken in Port McNeill right next door to a private

development — the same type of terrain and conditions — and we have

heard before in the Legislature of the higher costs incurred by the

government in producing those lots. It's a textbook case because the

adjacency and the timing were very similar. That has been pointed out

to me by those who have been on council in Port McNeill for many years,

as I visited there both when I was in opposition and as Premier. There

is no way we are going to repeat those mistakes, Mr. Chairman.

This

government is very proud of its record in the field of social services.

We are very proud of those things we have been able to accomplish.

Somehow, when members take offence in this House, and feel that their

concern for people is questioned, I want them and the people of this

province to know who has introduced those programs. Those programs of

shelter aid for the elderly, long-term care and dental care.... I want

them to know who brought in municipal revenue sharing to help our

municipalities. I want them to know who brought in the UTA and a

transit system that is providing transit not only for the people of

this province but for the disabled as well. I want them to know who has

done those things and more. Should I be called upon to complete the

list, I'm quite willing to stay here and compare that list to social

innovations introduced by any government in this province or any

government in this country. I believe the people of British Columbia

are well served with their social services.

There is a

problem with the growing escalation of costs of public services. It

faces not only this government in British Columbia but governments

across this country. It threatens our ability to deliver those services

that we are committed to. Yes, the government is concerned with trying

to rationalize balancing the income that it has with the outgo, to make

sure that those programs are never threatened because the economic base

isn't there to finance them. I want to tell you that, given some

opportunity, if I am requested to do so I can expand on that list for

the members who may have failed to deal with this when the ministerial

estimates came up earlier in this sitting.

[ Page 6578 ]

MR. DAVIS:

I want to talk this morning about two subjects on the Premier's

estimates. One is housing, and the other is immigration: affordable

housing in a period of high interest rates and immigration at a time

when our provincial economy is heating up as never before.

Reference

has already been made at length to federal-provincial relations.

Housing, in my view, is primarily a provincial responsibility. I know

that Ottawa has often taken financial initiatives in this area, but

housing comes under the general heading of property, and property is

provincial under our existing constitution, the British North America

Act.

Immigration is different. It is a shared responsibility

under the BNA Act. It is federal and provincial. Here again the

province — I might add the provinces generally — have been slow to

accept this particular responsibility. Unlike Quebec, Nova Scotia and

Saskatchewan, British Columbia doesn't have a formal agreement, for

instance, with Ottawa on numbers and skills: in other words, the nature

of the immigrant flow from abroad. It therefore has less say than I

think it should have as to the timing, mechanisms, skills and nature of

the immigration flow to this busy province of ours.

But let

me deal first with housing, Mr. Chairman. We need affordable housing as

never before. Other Canadians are coming to British Columbia to find

work. They're coming in record numbers. They have been coming here over

the last two years at the rate of around a thousand a week. This

population shift westward across the nation, together with the arrival

of a large number of immigrants from Europe and Asia, is bound to cause

a housing problem. It is responsible for an overall population growth

rate of between 3 and 4 percent a year, compared to 1 percent for the

nation as a whole. Rarely in our province's history, indeed, have we

experienced a sustained population growth rate, and consequently a

demand for housing, of this order of magnitude.

I refer

particularly to affordable housing, housing that the new homeowner can

afford, given this immigration and today's high interest rates. Land

prices are high, construction costs are up, and on top of it all we

have the current high cost of money. Therefore monthly payments tend to

be out of the reach of the typical first-home owner. They are too

demanding; they take too large a share of the typical family's income.

Too little is left to look after other necessities of life such as

food, clothing and transportation. We have a problem of land in British

Columbia. We don't have enough serviced lots close to our principal

centres of population and industry. But money for housing at a

reasonable cost and at a monthly rate that the first-home owner can

afford is the real problem. It's certainly a far more pressing problem

than serviced land availability. The money problem is something which

we in this Legislature must do something about. In my opinion we can do

something about it if we organize our provincial affairs in the right

way.

One of the ways I believe our government can help the

prospective homeowner is to subsidize interest rates, but there is a

limit to this kind of assistance. After a few years the government

would have to stop. It couldn't go on subsidizing interest rates for a

growing stock of homes year after year, because it would eventually

find itself so heavily committed to interest payments of this type that

it wouldn't be able to take significant initiatives in other areas like

education, human resources and health, the need for which is increasing

even more rapidly than the demand for shelter itself.

Rather

than building up this kind of debt, I would urge a different approach

from subsidizing interest rates. I'll refer to it as the equity

approach. It's a partnership approach. The government could become a

joint owner of each new residential property for a time. It could be a

short-term partner for the first-home owner, who would be the sole

owner of the home in the end. It could buy shares in the home-owning

business. It could be a temporary shareholder in the sense that it

participated along with the lasting owner of the home in its rising

market value in the early years of each homeownership plan. There would

have to be a time limit put on the period during which the government

was a partner — let us say five years. For the first five years the

first-time homeowner would only have to make payments on a first

mortgage. He or she wouldn't have to make payments, principal or

interest, on the government's equity in the home. If the equity

amounted to one-quarter of the original cost of the home, then the

monthly payments during the first five-year period would be reduced by

25 percent. After the first five years were up the government would

cease to be a partner in the equity sense. Its share in the home would

be converted to a second mortgage. According to this plan this second

mortgage would be equal to the then inflated fifth-year market value of

the home. In other words, the government would have participated fully

as a share-owner during this first five year interval. The second

mortgage which it then took as the price of its share in the home would

bear interest at the government's then current borrowing rate. This

second government-guaranteed mortgage could be paid off over, say, a

20-year period. This would keep the monthly payments down up to year

five and after year five. It would help to beat inflation at least for

the time being.

As the ongoing homeowner's income would be

higher at the end of year five than it was at the beginning of year

one, he or she would be in a better position financially to carry a

first and second mortgage beginning in year six. The government would

have seen its equity appreciate in the meantime. Its share in the home

would have risen along with other market values. Also it would get its

money back at its future inflated value when the second mortgage on the

home was eventually paid off.

To repeat, Mr. Chairman, I

would have the government enter into a partnership with the new

homeowner. I would see the government act as a partner for five or six

years. It wouldn't ask for any return of principal or interest during

that five- or six-year period, so the monthly payments that the

first-home occupier has to make are much less than they would otherwise

be. When the home owner-occupier is in better shape as a result of

increased earnings and as a first mortgage is partly paid off, he or

she can then assume full responsibility. They take over the

government's share at its market value and pay it off — principal and

interest — by way of a second mortgage which the government agreed at

the outset to guarantee as part of a long-term contractor package

designed to make home-owning easier for those who would otherwise have

to rent their accommodation from someone else. The big catch, of

course, is the funding of the government's share in literally thousands

of new homes. Large sums of money would have to be borrowed on the open

market by a government agency or corporation specially constituted for

this purpose. These moneys might be accumulated in what could be

referred to as a B.C. housing equity fund, and they would pay those who

lent money to the fund interest at the government's daily borrowing

rate. Together with an allowance for administration, this would be used

to help to build and maintain homes while they were in

[ Page 6579 ]

the

government partnership phase and later would be replenished, as the

second mortgage on these homes was paid off. A plan of this kind could

be used to help various categories of homeowners. However, it should be

introduced in stages. First-home owners would qualify first. Perhaps a

period of residence in the province would also be required. They would

have to make a down payment equal to, say, 15 percent of the initial

cost of the home. That, together with the government's 25 percent,

would mean that their first mortgage could be limited to 60 percent of

the initial cost of the home, an amount which could be financed by the

private capital market with relative ease.

A program of this

kind could be expanded. It might be used to help older people finance

their current expenses in later years. They could sell part of their

equity in their home to the government agency or corporation on the

understanding that the latter would share on a pro rata basis with the

original owners in the enhanced market value of the home when it was

eventually sold. Again, the government would be made whole when the

transaction was completed. It would have been a partner in the process.

It would have held part of the equity in the home for a time. Its

principal reward would be in sharing in the appreciated value of the

home, itself largely a product of inflation.

This government

partnership approach does not head off or cancel out any other forms of

assistance to homeowners. Crown land can be made available at reduced

prices, and the financial advantage in this case capitalized as part of

the government's equity. Interest rates on first mortgages can be

subsidized. Interest rates can be recognized as a cost by individuals

preparing their provincial income tax returns. But these forms of

assistance tend to be gimmicky, compared to a government equity-sharing

plan. The plan itself is relatively straightforward. It's easily

understood. It's self financing over the long run, and it can be

adjusted so as to minimize monthly payments in the earlier, more

difficult, years — years of inflation, years of growth here in B.C. The

government will naturally be taking a risk, but homes aren't a major

risk these days. Home values are bound to rise with inflation. What

better partner can a homeowner have than the rest of the people of the

province, all of whom will benefit in one way or another from new home

construction and a greater degree of home ownership in B.C.

The

government, the people of the province, will be lending their credit.

It will be putting on the line the credit of all the people of the

province. In other words, it will be using its "social credit," and it

will be using it in a constructive and thoroughly helpful way. It will

be providing new homes for people who need shelter, people with jobs

who are prepared to pay their way, people who need help from the rest

of our community in order to overcome the financial difficulties which

accompany inflation, but also people who, once the initial problems of

financing are overcome, will have a real stake in our provincial

economy. In turn, being helped will help others. A government-backed

home equity plan working in this way will not only make more people

feel at home in B.C. but it will also make home ownership a result of

province-wide sharing in this way.

This government has

already set its course in respect to northeast coal. It is taking an

equity position in B.C. Rail. It's giving B.C. Rail, say, $500 million

in instalments to pay for the new Anzac line through the Rockies to

Tumbler Ridge. Because it is equity, or shares in the railway, the

government won't ask for any return of principal or interest, at least

for a time. It won't get any return of principal, at least in the

1980s. If it's prepared to help finance a major resource export

industry in this way, why would it do less for tens of thousands of new

homeowners in the province? They are, or are in the process of,

becoming British Columbians. They will buy out the government share in

their home and pay off their second mortgage right down to the last

cent. They are less of a gamble, much less than northeast coal. So a

provincially backed home equity plan should be launched forthwith in my

view.

I can put it another way in year-by-year dollar terms.

Next spring the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be asking this Legislature for $100 million or

thereabouts in his estimates. This vote will buy $100 million of equity

in B.C. Rail. B.C. Rail will use it to pay the construction costs which

it has incurred during the current year on the Anzac line. A year later

in the spring of 1983 the minister will ask for $200 million or

thereabouts. This vote will buy $200 million of equity in B.C. Rail.

Again B.C. Rail will use these funds to pay for the building of the new

line. In 1984 there will be another $200 million vote. This will bring

the province's equity in B.C. Rail up to $500 million. Hopefully, that

will complete the building of the Anzac spur to Tumbler Ridge. As

citizens of British Columbia, we will have a $500 million equity in

B.C. Rail, an investment which doesn't have to pay either principal or

interest for some years thereafter.

Imagine what we could do

with a similar $100-million or $200-million-a-year home equity program.

It could build, or at least launch, the construction of between 5,000

and 10,000 new homes each year in British Columbia. This is the kind of

investment which I believe our government should make in home building

in this province. It would have a similar impact to northeast coal on

our expenditures out of Victoria, but it could be balanced by a

government home equity corporation borrowing these funds. In other

words, funds would flow into new home construction and after five or

six years begin to flow back again into the fund in inflated dollars

capable of paying a full market rate of interest once the government

share in each home was converted to a mortgage with a limited life.

Obviously

I'm not talking subsidies, or at least long-term subsidies, in the case

of housing. I'm talking about borrowing against assets in which the

Crown first holds a share and later holds a mortgage — dollars

recovered over a 25-year period. We will be adding materially to our

housing stock.

I hope I'm making myself clear, Mr. Chairman.

I'm saying that a government which is prepared to take an equity

position without a time limit in an export industry involving a

non-renewable resource should also be prepared to take an equity

position in something as solid and socially desirable as housing,

especially when its equity in this housing is for a limited period

only. When that period is over, it will be able to recover its

investment in full and with little risk in a rising market. Northeast

coal is a gamble as compared to housing. It has a much lower B.C.

content than new home construction. It will also have to compete with

other energy projects in other places. New homes in British Columbia

are a safe bet by comparison. I'm not saying that we should forget our

resource development programs — in other words, our job-producing

opportunities. We need them to provide the income that will help pay

for the new homes. We should take risks. Certainly private enterprise

should take risks. If we're prepared as a province and as a government

to hold

[ Page 6580 ]

equity,

and only equity, in B.C. Rail's Anzac line to our northeast coal

fields, then we should also be prepared to hold an equity position for

a reasonable time in new homes in British Columbia. For a lot of

British Columbians this will be home-owning made easier. It will do

every bit as much for private enterprise and a feeling of belonging for

young people, and our recent arrivals here in B.C.

Housing,

as I said at the outset, is, at least in my opinion, largely a

provincial responsibility. Immigration is a shared responsibility. If I

were the government, I would do what a number of Canadian provinces

have already done in respect to immigration. I would negotiate a

federal-provincial agreement. I would have some provincial say as to

who came to B.C. directly from abroad, what their qualifications were

and when they came. I wouldn't want them to settle all in one place; I

would want them to go where the opportunities are, and I would want

them to mix freely with British Columbians everywhere in B.C.

The

face of our province is changing. More people are coming to British

Columbia from the rest of Canada and abroad. They are coming to share

in our prosperity, but let's not lose our basic values in the process.

Home ownership and a feeling of belonging in and to our provincial

community are values which we prize above all else. With the government

launching a B.C.-backed home-equity plan, we will be highlighting these

values. We will be encouraging a way of life and an attitude towards

one another which is without parallel anywhere else in the world.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, because I know that the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) wants to say a few words. I want to respond

to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and say that it is a very

innovative plan that I know he and a number of his colleagues on this

side have discussed, along with other alternatives in the same type of

program, such as a portion of rent being allocated to option to

purchase at a similar conversion date — four or five years. Both

concepts have great appeal to me, because our government and our party

do have a philosophy of individual home ownership as opposed to renting

from the state, as it were. We want to continue to maintain British

Columbia's position, not only in the Canadian community but also in the

North American, of having one of the highest percentages of

homeownership per population. Not only do we want to see that

opportunity extended to the young people, who have a lifetime to

fulfill their dreams — it's popular to talk about the young; I have

four sons out working who want to own their own home someday — but I'm

also concerned about those in their thirties or forties or fifties who

don't yet own their own home. They don't have as much time to achieve

that opportunity. I thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. The

only further comment I would make is that you must have investments of

this kind not only in assisting homeownership but also in creating jobs

for the people who are going to live in the houses. It's important to

balance job opportunities, which projects such as northeast coal will

provide, with the fact that someone may just be coming to live here.

There must also be something for them to do, or we'd be dealing with a

lot of abandoned houses, such as we had in Terrace in 1974 and 1975. We

don't want to face that problem again in any part of British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have two very brief topics for the Premier. I wasn't going to mention the Premier's junket utilizing the Queen of Prince Rupert ,

because it has been well canvassed. But in view of the Premier's reply

to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I think I will say just

a few words. The Premier's response was, of course, that this would not

create a problem, that it would in fact alleviate a problem to pull

that vessel off the run for three days — at a cost of $106,000, not

including lost revenues. The fact is that people of the central and

north coast will feel the inconvenience. Those people as well have a

right to decent transportation. I agree that we should be good hosts in

British Columbia to the first ministers of our provinces. They are

always good hosts to us when we take these trips for various

conferences.

But I think this is going a little too far,

particularly in view of the fact that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

was asking for $25,000 for bus passes. Part of this cost of $106,000

could have gone for bus passes for these blind people. This year at

Malaspina College there have been cutbacks in classes for disabled

people and certainly cutbacks in the homemakers, plus an increase in

cost to homemakers. That's not the reason I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman.

I've raised the two topics I want to discuss in this House before

without success. As a previous speaker reported, the Premier does have

the power and the authority to make decisions on these two matters. One

involves the community of Ocean Falls. I won't go through that long

litany again; I have many times in this House. I want to remind the

Premier that more than a year ago the government promised to introduce

another type of industry into that community. To quote from the

government's own report, I'll just read one paragraph on page 7:

"Recent

studies have shown that Ocean Falls can continue to provide one of the

best people service centres on the mid-coast. Facilities now in place

for medical care, schooling, housing, provisioning and transit service

could not be readily duplicated."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

fact is that we have 140 people left in Ocean Falls. There's absolutely

nothing happening and no way for those people to make a living. The

government promised that a new industry would be located in that

community, and nothing is happening. We have no commitment from the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who is responsible to this Legislature for that Crown

corporation. We have no commitment from Mr. Williston and no commitment

from that government. People up there have the right to know what the

future of that community is. I wish the Premier would get up briefly

and explain that to this House. Give those people some hope. Should

they sell out or move out? Many are being forced out of that community

at the present time. I know that it's an old story. The press have sort

of forgotten that the community ever existed. The place shouldn't have

been shut down in the first place, but the fact is it has been shut

down over a year and nothing has happened.

The second item I

want to discuss very briefly with the Premier — it's a topic he's very

familiar with — is the lack of public hearings on certain big-ticket

energy and hydro projects. I'm talking specifically about a proposed

natural gas line to Vancouver Island. I'm sure everyone in this

Legislature is in favour of supplying Vancouver Island and other parts

of this province with that cheaper, cleaner energy resource. We feel

that there should be a full public hearing into

[ Page 6581 ]

the

route selection for that proposed pipeline. When I raised this topic

under the estimates of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland),

that minister indicated to me that he knew very little about the cost

of that project. The economic impact of that project, where your

government and B.C. Hydro are going to be committing literally hundreds

of millions of dollars.... Your government and B.C. Hydro still do not

know if that is the best possible and the most economic route to cross

the strait, whether it should be north or south, or whatever, and if it

will be in the best long-term economic interests of this province, as

well as the environmental considerations which have to be thought out.

So I'm suggesting that the Premier can, if he wishes, order full public

hearings so that all sides, parties and peoples can be heard on this

very important matter. That is all we've ever asked on that particular

project.

MR. RICHMOND: As this is the first

opportunity I've had to speak in the House, I would like to thank all

members on both sides for making me very welcome on May 28. It is

indeed a pleasure and a privilege to be here. To this point I have been

extremely well treated by members on both sides of the House, for which

I am very thankful.

Mr. Chairman, as this is my first

speech, and I didn't have a chance to speak during the throne speech

debate, or through many of the ministries' estimates, I would ask some

latitude in the range of my remarks, and respectfully request the

indulgence of the House. I will keep my remarks as brief as possible,

as today time seems to be of the essence.

I don't have to

tell anyone in this House about the Kamloops constituency in general.

It has been well represented in this Legislature over the years.

However, in the last several months to a year the Kamloops area has

been experiencing a tremendous boom in the economy. Yesterday the

Premier was chastised from the other side of the House for not talking

about the economy in this province. You don't have to talk about the

economy in this province: all you have to do is take a look at an area

like Kamloops. Thousands of tradesmen are moving to the Kamloops area,

and they're all finding jobs and making more money than anywhere else

in Canada. You can't hire a tradesman in Kamloops right now, and that,

Mr. Chairman, does not happen by accident. It happens due to the sound

economic policies of a government that is committed to providing job

opportunities for all of the people.

Kamloops is

experiencing a boom, one that has been brought on by the positive

actions of this Premier and this government. It has precipitated

tremendous activity in the mining industry in and around Kamloops.

Mining exploration is now healthy again. New ore bodies are being

discovered and new mines are being opened — mines like Highmont that

have been put on hold for nine years and just opened last month. And

soon the giant Valley Copper is expected to be announced later this

year. This increase in mining activity alone has accounted for a large

influx of people into our area, seeking and finding new, well-paying

jobs, and again adding to the prosperity of the region, but bringing

with them of course some inherent problems, some problems of prosperity

such as rental accommodation. Many of the people are young; they're

fairly transient people, and they require reasonably priced rental

accommodation. The vacancy rate in Kamloops in the last three years has

gone from about 20 percent down to zero. This Premier and this

government are aware of the situation and are addressing the problem,

and solutions will be forthcoming shortly. It's the type of problem

that is not solved overnight. Some of the problems inherent in a

booming economy are affecting our area, as they are affecting all areas

of the province. But they are problems preferable to the ones we

experienced when people were leaving this province.

People

of Kamloops and the constituency know that the increased mining

activity, for example, in the Highland Valley will put additional

pressures on all of our transportation and highway systems. The

government is aware that many more dollars will have to be spent

upgrading our highway systems if we're to move the volume of traffic

anticipated, and to prevent an increase in the number of accidents. I

am pleased that this government had the vision and the foresight to

plan the Coquihalla Highway. It's a beautiful route through the

mountains that will cut an hour off the trip to the coast from Kamloops.

Another

situation that is brought about by the influx of people into our area

is the need for daycare. There are excellent daycare facilities in

Kamloops, and it would appear that the number of single parents is

increasing at a rate faster than can be accommodated in these centres.

I would like to point out that I've had several meetings with single

parent groups. Not all, but by far the majority of them are not looking

for government-subsidized daycare. They are quite willing and able to

pay for their daycare. Most of them have excellent jobs, making good

salaries. I think that the need is here to encourage the private sector

with some start-up funding to establish adequate daycare facilities.

would like to compliment the Premier at this time for his

farsightedness in developing the Pacific Rim countries as trading

partners for British Columbia. This area of the world will have a

tremendous bearing on the industries in and around Kamloops, especially

on mining but also on forestry — which includes our pulp production and

ranching and agriculture. I feel that the interior of this province can

look forward to generations of very successful and prosperous trade

with the countries of the Pacific Rim. Along this line I am pleased to

announce that the tenders were opened for a stretch of highway from

Bullmoose to Tumbler Ridge just yesterday in the great northeast

section of our province. The low bidder on this $11 million job was a

Kamloops construction company. So the northeast coal deal is already

providing benefits for my constituency.

I would like also at

this time to commend the Premier for his stand on the constitution. I

know that we're all tired of hearing about it. But how many of us

realize or understand the bread-and-butter implications of the

constitution. Ever since he's become Premier, Bill Bennett has led the

way and seen the need for provincial input into national policies which

affect the day-to-day lives of the people in Canada and British

Columbia, and in Kamloops. I would add here that he's been ably

assisted by the past member for Kamloops (Mr. Mair), and the current

minister.

Some of these national policies, which affect us

every day, are those of the Bank of Canada, which has an enormous

impact on inflation and production, through interest rates and control

of the money supply. Another is the Canadian transport system, which

through its rate policies and freight rates determines the viability of

existing and proposed industry, the federal policy, which affects the

cost of living and the location and the mix of industry in the country,

and of course an extremely important area, which, is jurisdiction over

resources. I know the Premier realizes that we must look for

ever-increasing cooperation with Ottawa if we are ever going

[ Page 6582 ]

to realize some of the opportunities that are available to all of us.

would like to mention also at this time that the people of Kamloops and

area and those downstream from Kamloops are very pleased that this

government appointed a task force to study the problem of pollution in

the Thompson River. It's very important to our area. The government

gave that task force a strict mandate and timetable: to report within

six months and come up with solutions to these problems — not just

another study. I'm also pleased to report that I have spoken with Dr.

Bob Smillie, the chairman of the task force; and he indicates that they

are making great progress and have held several public hearings, and

the response so far has been excellent.

I'm delighted that

this Premier and this government have decided to name a mountain for

Terry Fox. This great young Canadian was an inspiration to all of us. I

can't think of a more fitting or lasting tribute to this young hero

than one of our beautiful mountains. It is something that people of all

of Canada will be able to point to with pride for all time.

would just like to touch for a moment, Mr. Chairman, on the government

ferries, which seem to be getting a lot of attention these last couple

of days. Let me tell you that I ride the ferries all the time. I sit in

lineups too — very short lineups, I might add. On Sunday, a very busy

day at Horseshoe Bay, my wife and some friends and I did not have to

wait in line for more than 20 minutes, although the lot was nearly

full. We were able to get on one of our new jumbo ferries that

swallowed the whole parking lot full of cars. We got good service and

good food in the cafeteria. To me that's performance and that's

planning, and it didn't happen by accident. It happens because the

government had the foresight to build. This is a government that builds

in all areas.

In the last day or so much has been made of

the leadership and the stewardship of this Premier. Mr. Chairman, I

submit to you and this House that this province, under the leadership

of this Premier, is in excellent hands.

Mr. Chairman, I

could go on and talk about many topics, especially as they pertain to

the Kamloops constituency, but as time doesn't permit I would like to

close by thanking the Chair for its indulgence in allowing me some

latitude in this speech to perhaps stray from the topic at hand. I hope

I haven't taken undue advantage, because it would have been very easy.

I would have liked to have spoken about the need for a second crossing

of the North Thompson River — a need that this government is addressing

— namely our bridge at Halston. I could also have spoken about the

progress being made on our long-promised and long-awaited courthouse

facility, but I will save those topics for an appropriate time,

hopefully in the near future.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I

would like to indicate to the Premier and to this House that I am proud

to be a member of this Legislature and especially to be a member of

this government. Once again I thank everyone for making me welcome, and

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence in the wide-ranging

aspects of my remarks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman,

I think all members should certainly compliment the last speaker on his

first speech in this assembly, and also compliment the House on its

degree of tranquillity, unaccustomed though we are to that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada