[ Page 1445 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1445

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1447

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 1454

Mr. Skelly –– 1456

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1461

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p. m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should let the House in on a little concern that I have, and I'm sure that the Speaker will assist me. I have a note here that arrived on my desk that says: "Don't let the fact that you are speaker number 13 on March 13 put you off." I ask the Chair: is that any kind of a threat that I should take by way of...?

Before the dinner adjournment…. And I hope everybody had a very nice dinner and is in very good humour, because I intend to speak very quietly and dispassionately and not too long. I do want, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to set the record straight on some rather unfortunate incidents that occurred in this House not long ago, and I wouldn't have mentioned it tonight had I not received a document which interested me, because it made me look at myself again in an entirely different light. And I think you'll see what I mean in a minute, Mr. Speaker.

I find now that I am perhaps the heavyweight champion of all Canadian legislatures. After a slight disagreement in this House, I think it was a week ago last night, and an exchange of views that perhaps, while heated and healthy, was a little unseemly, I went back to my office and thought to myself the first thing I'd better do is tell the Speaker that I'm sorry that I may have caused him difficulty. And you, Mr. Speaker, know that I did that; and I do it again now. I only pause now to observe that I'm sorry if I did cause you any trouble, and I'm sorry if I ever do, and I mean that sincerely. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that however much I may be out of order in this House from time to time — and I hope it's not too often — it's never out of any lack of respect for you or the position that you hold. However angry I may get — and I admit to that human failing — you'll never see me throwing rule books or anything of that sort, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Of course not. It's a handicap; you know that as well as I do.

You'll always find me, Mr. Speaker, showing you the greatest respect and answering your call to order.

Getting back to the point, the day after the unfortunate exchange of views the other night I ran across the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in the hall and I thought, not out of friendship — I think that would be an exaggeration — but out of cordiality, that I would extend my hand. I extended my hand, and it was refused. I wondered why. Then I ran into a document which I think explains it.

I was walking down the hall the other day and heard loud guffaws from the press gallery. I went upstairs to investigate and, lo and behold, I found Frank Howard's report from the Legislature. I don't want to either take the time of the House or embarrass the House by going into this in great detail, but it certainly does seem that I owe a number of members an apology, particularly the elderly, frail second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who apparently cowered in a corner.

MR. MACDONALD: Step outside and say that!

HON. MR. MAIR: Furthermore — and I know the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) will forgive this sexist remark — he borrows from the ladies some of their peccadillos, because I notice that while he told Mr. Webster the other day that he was 60 years of age, Frank Howard's report from the Legislature has him 62 and frail.

I feel very sorry, of course, that I did that. But then when you go on in this document you will find that none other than the member for Skeena himself was cowering in fright from the mad man who is the Minister of Health. I thought to myself, that doesn't quite ring right. I'm sure I read something in Marjorie Nichols about the member for Skeena. Of course, we on this side always read Marjorie Nichols; we need a boost after a hard day. She certainly is an unimpeachable source. Lo and behold, I find that the hon. member when he was in Ottawa was the heavyweight champion of the House of Commons. That is not quite so, because Marjorie Nichols says that if there had been a brawl at any given time in the House of Commons, only two people would have survived — the member for Skeena and Jack Horner — but she gave it as her considered opinion that, of course, the member for Skeena would have survived.

Well, I can only say it is no wonder that he refused my handshake the following day. Here I had always thought that, not having been involved in a fight for 40 years, I was a coward. Now I find I am sort of like the cowardly lion in "The Wizard of Oz." All I have to do is run into the heavyweight champion of the House of Commons; he backs away from me, and now I'm the champ.

MR. SPEAKER: Now to the budget.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, the budget! Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get directly to the budget quite yet. Perhaps I might touch upon it, because I am certain that there are provisions in that budget somewhere for royal commissions if any of my colleagues or myself would want to appoint one. Royal commissions came up in a rather direct way the other night when the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) spoke. I'd like to deal with this for a minute. I'd like to be serious for a moment, Mr. Speaker, because I think I may have left some misunderstanding in the minds of members here, and I certainly wouldn't want there to be any misunderstanding among people who may have been upset outside of this House by the remarks I made.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point is simply this: if any member of this House, or any group in this House, wishes to attack the findings of a royal commission, of course, that's very much open to them. But when you start to attack the results of a royal commission by attacking the commissioner himself, and when you attack him because he may have had a political background, then you open up a very, very dangerous door indeed.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner who was under attack the other night — and make no mistake about it, he was under attack, despite the rather funny remarks of the member afterwards.... If you read that attack, you will find that it was directly on the commissioner, Mr. Eckardt, and it was by comparing him to somebody who was a political organizer for the New Democratic Party. Now when you do that, you are saying, in essence, that that judge

[ Page 1446 ]

was unfair because he was politically motivated. That's plainly and simply what you are saying, and you're saying that he was politically motivated because he once had a political history and he once ran for office.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now let's take this "was Mr. Justice Norris a judge?" Mr. Speaker, if you could bring the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to order just for a moment, I think what I'm driving at will become clear. I think we ought to be very careful of how we do this in the future. When you attack a commissioner on that basis, you might just as well go back and attack Mr. Justice Berger for the Berger commission appointed by the federal government. I haven't attacked him, and if I did, it would certainly be on the basis of the report he wrote, not upon him personally nor upon his political history.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if a political history is a reason for never having the office of commissioner, then I think we'd better examine Mr. Justice — as he then was — Emmett Hall, who is now conducting, for the second time, very useful hearings on the health situation in Canada. We'd better talk about Mr. Peter Pearse, a man for whom I have the greatest respect, who brought down an eminently worthy forestry report for this House and who has run twice in the political arena.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, if I may, so that we can be perfectly clear on this, I have the greatest admiration for the late Mr. Justice Norris, who had a distinguished record at the bar, a distinguished record as a jurist and a distinguished record as a servant of this country. But he had a political history, and the point I was making the other night is the point I make now — if we're going to start criticizing people who take on public tasks on the grounds that they once had a political history, let's remember that this cuts all ways and it goes back to all people who ever had a political history who've been called upon to perform a service for this government.

Having unburdened myself of that, let me just unburden myself of one other thing, and then I will touch very briefly on the budget. I think that this does deal with the budget, and if Your Honour wishes me to relate it directly I'm sure I could, but I'll be very brief indeed.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) the other night went back once again in debate to the long-lost Sommers case. I only say this, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I have the attention of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I was under the impression that every member of this House would wish that a man who had paid his debt to society, for whatever reason, was entitled to be left alone, was entitled to be left in peace. Mr. Speaker, if that does not happen to be the view of the House as a whole, I can assure you it's the view of this side of the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, having unburdened myself, as I say, of those few remarks — and I'm very appreciative of your kind forbearance as I did so — I would like to touch very briefly on the budget, and I say that I will be brief, because despite the fact that I've heard from my friend from New Westminster just a moment ago that I won't be three years in my estimates but only three months or whatever it may be. I know that we're going to spend plenty of time on those parts of the estimates for which I have direct responsibility. I think it would be sad to upstage the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the brilliant repartee that I intend to conduct with him, by dealing with it at any length now.

But I do want to make one or two points. The health budget, no matter how you carve it up, is an enormous amount of money for 2.5 million people. There are $1.55 billion are now being allocated for the Ministry of Health, and there's no ministry in government, Mr. Speaker, with which it is easier to play politics. I don't say that as any particular criticism of the other side, although let the cap fit, etc., if the cap fits. But I do say that there is no other ministry in government where it is so easy to play upon emotions, so easy to drag up cases which are heart-rending, so easy to make a case out of a small instance and blow it into something big. Now, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we do have problems in the delivery of health services in the province of British Columbia. My predecessor had difficulties, and I'm sure the member for New Westminster had difficulties when he was the minister. While I would expect that this House will hear all of those concerns that members have about delivery of health services, I hope that they will be responsible.

I'm very sorry that I don't see either of the members for the Coquitlam area here tonight, because I know that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) are very concerned, I'm sure the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is, about the Eagle Ridge Hospital situation. Now here is a classic example of what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure that when a public meeting is held on this next Thursday the three members I have mentioned will go to that meeting and will react and behave responsibly and will recognize that here is another example of how the government has to make a very difficult decision and make sure that they spend $18 million of the public's money in a rational and responsible way. I'm sure — at least I'm almost sure — that nobody would go to that meeting and say that it must be done this way because the government is very, very wrong if they don't do it, or it must be done another way. I'm sure they'll go there just to get the facts so that they can come and present to me in a rational way their views on the subject to help me make a decision. At least I hope that that's the case.

Mr. Speaker we do have some of the problems that have been related to me by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) in the last few days. There is no question that this government, out of the spirit of generousness, brought in a long-term care program at a time when, unless we had a great deal of cooperation from all involved, we were going to have discomfort and use of acute-care beds for other purposes, and we were going to require a great deal of help from all people involved. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that by and large we have got that cooperation; by and large the hospitals, knowing full well what we're trying is extend care to people — not to reduce but to extend it to all people who need it — are trying very hard to accommodate us as we build extended-care beds at the rate of 1,000 per year. They recognized that when we brought in a long-term care program we couldn't say that in the first year only those whose surnames began with A to G would qualify, and go on that way; that once we brought the program in everybody who was entitled to get the service could get it. They recognized that, as do most of the medical profession, as do most of the nursing profession. Indeed, I think that those who have been put to discomfort — that is the patients — by and large have also been cooperative and helpful.

[ Page 1447 ]

Of course the difficulty is that you get the odd case of a person who wants to play politics. We've had an example in recent weeks of a doctor who wanted to play politics, who in order simply to focus attention on what he thought was a problem chose to go to the newspapers with something less than the full facts. I don't say that in order to be overly critical of the doctor, Mr. Speaker, but only to point out that that does no good to the people of British Columbia, and it does no good to our ability to deliver services to them.

This is what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, and when the second member for Victoria asked me a question in the House concerning that situation the other day, I was very grateful to him. I have assured him today that he will have a full answer from me in the next couple of days. But I'm hopeful that during the time that we are short of hospital beds and are building them at the rate that I have indicated, we will have the kind of cooperation that we need in British Columbia, not as Social Crediters or NDPers, but as British Columbians, to continue to bring to the people of British Columbia the best health care, I think, in the western world, if not in the entire world.

I want to tell you, if I may, just a couple of things that we in the Ministry of Health are committed to do with the $1.55 billion, assuming that this House votes it to us. We intend to maintain and, in fact, enhance the commitment that we have made to the Long-Term Care Program. Now this is going to be measured not only in terms of hospital beds but home care as well. And I think that, given a two- or three-year period — because it's going to take that to put it completely into place — British Columbia will have for its senior citizens and its disadvantaged citizens certainly the best care in North America.

We have a commitment to continuing the large and exciting hospital program started by my predecessor. This is a monumental program. When I read the carping criticism that happens in the newspapers from time to time — I know it's well intended; nevertheless it is carping — and I weigh that against the enormous program instituted by my predecessor, which we intend to carry on, it boggles my mind indeed. We intend to continue this program. And I want to assure members of this House that at the end of the program they will have every reason indeed to be proud of the hospital services provided to their constituents, and to all British Columbians in this province.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to embark upon a dental-care program, and up until now I haven't had too much argument from the other side of the House; but I'm probably going to have a little bit of argument from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) at this point in time, because I heard him this afternoon talk about what they were going to do. It reminded me over and over again of the "we-were gonna" gang. "We were going to do this, we were going to do that, we were going to do the other thing." Well, I'll tell you why you didn't do it and why you couldn't have done it. You didn't have the bread — you didn't have any money. Sure it was a great idea, no question about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, go on with you! You didn't have money for ICBC, that lost $181 million; you didn't have money for the ferries, no question about it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's come back to order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly concede that if we wanted to adopt the policies of the Liberal government in Canada over the last 20 years or so, and we wanted to simply put your losses in ICBC and the Ferry Corporation on to the red side of the ledger and say, "Who cares? We are going to carry a deficit spending type of situation," yes, we could have done it, no question about it. If we'd wanted to forget about Swan Valley and ICBC and all of the other calamities, there's no question about it, Mr. Speaker, we could have ridden this province into debt and we could have brought in the dental-care program. But under the very careful and wise handling of the former Minister of Finance and now the present Minister of Finance, we chose to get the province's affairs in order. The province's affairs are now in order, and we will have a dental-care program, and we will have it this calendar year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I will be brief, and I intend to take my seat in just a moment. I do want to make this observation about the budget in general. I have heard so many things from the critics across about what the budget isn't going to do. It isn't going to do this and it isn't going to that. Well, it isn't going to help build a tunnel from Calais to Dover either, and it isn't going to help anybody in Afghanistan, and there is no money in it for Iranian refugees. What it does have is a great deal of help for the business community of this province. What it does have is a great deal of help for the forest industry, upon which all of our social dollars depend, and it does have a great deal of help for the people of British Columbia in terms of social services. Don't tell us what it doesn't do. I'll tell you what it does do. It looks after small business, it looks after the main source of our revenue in this province, and it looks after the people of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, it's my first opportunity in this session of the Legislature to make some comments, not only to other members of this House, not only to the media, but also to the people who live in my constituency of North Island. I wanted to start out this evening by making a very brief comment about an item I saw on the CBC-TV news, not the other Thursday but tonight — surprise. It was an interview with a very respected reporter from the press gallery here in Victoria dealing with her anchorman in Vancouver. She talked about the — perhaps I'm paraphrasing — "boring speeches" that have been made in this Legislature about places like Dease Lake, and issues raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) relating to important matters in his constituency. After watching the television news tonight I thought back to my university days and remembered a couple of words from a poet that I didn't have a lot of respect for but enjoyed, a poet named Thomas Gray, who wrote a poem called "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard." There are three lines out of a four-line stanza, Mr. Speaker, that I want to relay to the very respected reporter covering these debates....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Name names.

MR. GABELMANN: I wouldn't name her name in this chamber; she would be very embarrassed.

[ Page 1448 ]

But at the beginning of my comments I want to just quickly say to the House and to the gallery and the public that there are many parts of this province that are "far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife." There are many parts of this province that have a "sequester'd vale of life," and "they kept the noiseless tenor of their way." I relay these lines, Mr. Speaker, because what the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and the member for Nelson-Creston were saying in this Legislature earlier today is just as important as what might be said by our member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) or the government's member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom). British Columbia is not Vancouver, and I think I can say that as someone who has lived in Vancouver for a long time and as someone who has represented a greater Vancouver constituency in this Legislature for three-odd years. British Columbia does not end at the banks of Point Grey, and for the media — and this is not an attack on the media; all the members of the gallery will know that — to suggest that what rural members in this Legislature say concerning their constituencies is boring or of less importance, or "We're awaiting the real debate" — 1 think they should reconsider.

I want to talk about a number of items that relate very directly to the budget but also very directly to North Island, to matters that affect people who are as much citizens of this province as those people who live in greater Vancouver and who watch CBC-TV news.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're breaking ground.

MR. GABELMANN: To the former Attorney-General: it's not the first time, I hope, that I've tried to break some ground in this Legislature, as he will remember.

Mr. Speaker, I've read the budget, and frankly, it doesn't impress me very much. But I want to say a couple of good things. Because when I go back to my riding, people say to me: "Why don't you ever say anything good about the other side?" And I say: "Ah, I do. I said something four years ago, and that was the only time I could remember anything good." But it's a little bit more complicated than that. There are occasions when, in fact, there is something good that should be said about our opponents, and when that happens I think we should say it. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think the tentative, halting but progressive moves made by the government, by the Finance minister, in terms of energy conservation are good. I say it very clearly, very directly and very loudly: I think those steps are in the right direction. Energy conservation is the wave of the future, and whatever we can do to enhance that progress is good. So, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: thank you for taking the 4 percent sales tax off some of those items. It's not much, but it's a good step. And I want to say to those people in my constituency who say, "Why don't you ever say anything good?" that I have; I can't think of much else.

Mr. Speaker, it's a billion dollars more. Why? Well, I tried to go through the estimates, I went through the pages of the estimate book, looked at them and thought to myself: why is it that we are spending so much more money in British Columbia now? I tried to see the items that had been increased. The most dramatic increase I could find in the entire budget was in vote 9: the amount from $245,000 to $551,000 — much more than double — the staff complement 9 to 17, almost double. What vote is vote 9, Mr. Speaker? The Premier's office. The most significant increase in budgetary spending by this government this year is inside the Premier's office, more than doubling the spending, almost doubling the staff. Why, why, why?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got three crews: one going, one working and one coming.

MR. GABELMANN: Plus an extra crowd to handle all the inquiries.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have a lot more to say about some of these items in estimates. Tonight I want to cover.... As Norman DePoe might have said, I'd like to cover the waterfront if I can this evening. I'm going to take my full 40 minutes, too, and I warn the House of that right now, because I have about four hours' worth of material in front of me. I'm going to end tonight talking about social services, the performance or lack thereof by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and by talking about the death of a child that I think is the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources. I'm going to have much more to say about that come the end of this session. I'm going to end my comments tonight by making those comments.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker — it is standing rule 40, I believe. The member is just now saying he is going to be bringing forth an argument or something which accuses the Minister of Human Resources and casts aspersions against me in regard to "the death of a child." I would say that is probably the most incredible charge that anybody could put against another member of this House. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the standing order which is cited is standing order 40. Subsection (1) says: "No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty or a member of the Royal family, nor the Governor-General...."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure all members recognize that standing order 40 doesn't end there. It continues:

"....or person administrating the government of Canada or nor of the Lieutenant-Governor or of the person administrating the government of this province. No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House; nor shall he speak beside the question in debate."

I think, perhaps, those are words which we should all hear. Any accusation, personal allusion or personal attack needs to come on a substantive motion, and it would need two days' notice on the order paper. Please proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with your comments. I also happen to agree with the comments of the Minister of Human Resources. It is "the most incredible charge." I will withdraw, in advance of having said, any of the comments that I have yet to say. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have something to say about it, and it will come.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the withdrawal. Proceed.

[ Page 1449 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I hope the minister stays to hear it, because it is serious, and I intend to talk about it in a serious way.

Before I get to the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a minister who isn't here tonight yet, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — or the minister against those three items. First of all I want to talk about housing.

We have a minister who is charged with the responsibility of providing housing in this province, and what do we see in the budget? We see no increases whatsoever in the budget, aside from a non-budgetary — in the strict sense — item of an extra million dollars out of surplus funds for senior housing. What is there for the rental problem in Vancouver? What is there for low-income housing, which is a serious problem in this province? What is there for rural and remote housing, which has been cut back by that government? What is there in the budget, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing.

It is so bad that even the very conservative former law partner of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the present mayor of Vancouver, said it was pitiful — a million bucks. Imagine what his opponent for the mayoralty would say — somebody who does believe in housing. Volrich said the puny $1 million fund for low-cost housing is "woefully inadequate in light of the critical housing shortage."

In another interview with the media he went on: "The province had a rich budget and could have directed some of its wealth into rental accommodation, especially for senior citizens and people with special needs. Instead the budget provides for only $1 million for the entire province, which is unlikely to have much of an impact."

If ever there was an understatement, that was it. The Minister of Housing has failed to persuade his cabinet colleagues, and the cabinet has failed in their responsibility to understand and to do something about the most serious housing crisis this province has ever had.

In Vancouver you can't find a place to rent. In Campbell River, where I represent constituents, you can't find a place to rent. And what is the budgetary response? Not a penny. Nothing for co-op housing. Nothing for public housing. "Oh, we've given the responsibility to the federal government," they'll say when they get their chance to say it. "We'll let the federal government do that."

This problem exists here in this province, and they have allocated $1 million for senior housing. Good, good, good! But it's not enough. They must do more. They have not increased the basic amount that they have in their estimates….

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred million dollars.

MR. GABELMANN: Let's talk about the $200 million. I wasn't going to talk about the $200 million, because I thought the whole province understood what a colossal piece of gall that was.

Do you know what the $200 million means, Mr. Speaker? It means that up to 3,000 or 4,000 people might be eligible if they build a home for less than $95,000 value at the end of this year — a year when real estate prices are increasing by 5 percent per month, 60 percent per year, not even accumulated. Five percent per month increase in the value of real estate in this province, and people are expected to try to build a home, including the value of the lot, for $95,000, and then they are eligible.

They take the chance, in building that house, that by the end of this year it may be valued at $96,000 — and then they're not eligible. But even if those 3,000 people are eligible, what happens? Three years later they go up to the prevailing market rate. What a phony, meaningless, nonsensical PR gimmick that $200 million was.

And do you know what that $200 million was, Mr. Speaker? It was not $200 million; it was $8 million. That's all it cost the government of British Columbia for a year. The cost of the difference between 9-plus and 15-plus, or whatever the market value happens to be at a particular time, is $8 million to $10 million a year that the government has to spend. They're talking about a $5.8 billion budget, and they have $8 million for mortgage assistance.

The minister from my old area, my friend from Penticton, used to be in the credit union movement, and they were glad to be rid of him, let me tell you. He has the gall to stand up in this House and say that that's a good program. There's nobody else in this province who would stand up and say that. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have a lot more to say about housing come the estimates of that non-minister; and I can tell you, there is some anger, not just on my part, but on the part of many people in this province.

I want, while I'm at this point in my comments, to continue with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and talk about a problem that's a very serious problem in North Island. Do you know that if you want to go camping on this island, if you're an ordinary person who doesn't own a big family trailer or big camper vehicle, and you want to go camping with your kids — you want to go tenting, and you decide you want to visit the northern half of Vancouver Island — the only place that you can go camping is in the odd site provided by a private forest company — which the forest companies have generously provided to the people of this province? There is not a single government campsite north of Campbell River — in Gold River, Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Sointula, Alert Bay or Holberg. In any of those communities there is not a single government campsite. Do you know what the minister's response is to that?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if it's my comments that are creating the problem, please advise me. There is not a single government campsite. One of our big problems in North Island is the fact that there is a very significant native population. Many of those bands, those Indian communities, have begun the long, slow, grinding process of making themselves economically self-sufficient. Some of them have done very well at it, and some others are still struggling and have some years to go. One of those bands, the Fort Rupert band just outside of Port Hardy, recognized the fact that there were no camping facilities. There were no tourist facilities — to the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). One of those native bands decided that it would undertake to provide camping facilities for recreational vehicles in that part of our province where the government had failed to provide them, and so they embarked on a program to do so. They applied for a much-wanted TIDSA grant, which the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the

[ Page 1450 ]

member for Okanagan North are presently involved in administering.

Do you think they got their TIDSA application to provide 200 recreational vehicle campsites south of Port Hardy? No, they didn't. The reason was the bureaucratic one that they had already received some ARDA money from the federal government, and so they weren't qualified. Do you know why I think they weren't qualified, Mr. Speaker? It is because they were Indians; they weren't white entrepreneurs. That's why I think they didn't qualify, and I make that charge directly.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I made that comment as a considered comment. And I have yet to get to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), because I've got a lot of those kinds of problems in my riding, too.

In the meantime, we have the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Chabot) announcing that he's going to raise all the campsite fees. And we gather that the campground fees are going up in direct response to the application from the private campsite owners that the government campsites be competitive. I sometimes wonder how small business people ever make it. The small business people who really do well in the campsite business are the ones who are located near government campsites, because there's always an overflow, because there's always more demand for government campsites. So when people go to a government campsite and they can't get in, they go to the private site.

It's not the other way around. I dare any member in this Legislature to contradict that. It's always that campers go to the government facility; they can't get in, and then they go to the private facility. But what have we got the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing doing? We've got him raising the campsite fees at the request of the private campsite owners who can't see the forest for the trees. Let me read a letter I got from a constituent of mine. The name and address are available to anyone who might want to look at it later; it's not a phony letter, Mr. Speaker. This woman writes:

"Last summer we spent some weeks in Penticton camping in the American Incorporated Camping Park, which was formerly called the South Beach Gardens. We were only able to get into the park because we had reserved space in January; after May no reservations were accepted. Much pressure was put on us to pay the membership fee of $44 and the yearly dues of $120 to join the AIC Association. I protested that American money was allowed to buy up so many of our best camping sites and not allow Canadians to use the parks without buying a membership. According to what we were told, the AIC Association has bought parks at Mara Lake, Kelowna, Vernon, Christina Lake and who knows how many more, and even though there may be a hundred spaces open in those parks, non-members were turned away. This we saw happen many times.

"There are two points to consider. First, is the government going to stand by and watch American associations, who claim Canadian funding, come in and buy up the campsites? Secondly, is the government satisfied to raise its camping charge without increasing the number of campsites to provide space to replace the decreasing number of private parks due to closed memberships?"

Mr. Speaker, those questions are important, and they have not been answered by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

We have the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) talking about building up the tourism industry in this part. If you want to go on a camping holiday or any other kind of holiday in the northern part of Vancouver Island and you want to complete that trip by going on to Prince Rupert, don't do it in May, June or July of this year, because we've lost the Queen of Prince Rupert. There's no point going as far as Port Hardy because there's no place to camp unless you want to camp along the side of the road. What kind of government is this? Here we have a situation where we require both the Queen of the North — the former Queen of Surrey — and the Queen of Prince Rupert on the northern runs, at least in the summer. I acknowledge that maybe only one of them is required in the winter but certainly both are required in the summer. And what do we have? We've got neither for two or three months this year, and one later — at a cost of $7 million reconversion. I'm not going to go into the whole Marguerite thing, Mr. Speaker, because I don't have time, but it doesn't just affect Victoria. You know, the petitions come from Victoria about the Marguerite, but the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the other members on Vancouver Island recognize what a damaging blow to the tourist industry in this province has been done by the bungling of that government over there.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) left a few minutes ago because he couldn't stand my charges on one issue. I want to tell him something in the face of this budget's supposedly massive increases for forestry. I have had five letters in the last two months from entrepreneurs, free enterprisers, none of whom, I suspect, voted for me. None of them. But I've had five letters from people who employ several hundred people in the forest industry in this province who have closed their doors because they can't afford the stumpage rates. They're losing money; they can't write it off as can the multinationals. What's happening is that the free enterprisers in this province, the small guys, the small people, arc going broke; they're closing their doors.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to talk about this during the forestry estimates, and we're going to talk about this during the economic affairs estimates. "Economic development?" Economic undevelopment. Small entrepreneurs, small free enterprisers, people who genuinely believe in the free enterprise system and vote Social Credit, have voted Social Credit, are closing their doors. Whether it's in the forest industry, whether it's in the tourist industry or whether it's in the retail sales industry, that's true in every town in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I lose my voice by raising it in anger, and I have some, I want to talk to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). The Minister of Transportation and Highways and I have always had and I said this last summer, last June or July — a pretty good relationship. Frankly, and I want to echo the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) when I say this, he's one of the few people on that side of the House whom I really do like. One of the reasons I no longer go to state balls and state dinners and all that stuff at the Government House is because I can't stand the behaviour; I can't stand the class that it represents. But nevertheless, there are some people on that side....

[ Page 1451 ]

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Listen, I'm speaking from my heart, and if you don't like it that's your tough luck. There are people on the opposite side that I do respect and I do like. I'm talking about one, and that's the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Don't dare me to name two. Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and I do enjoy working with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. But let me tell you, he'd better get….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it seems that various members take it upon themselves to speak out.... Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) please come to order. It seems that members, contrary to the standing orders, take it upon themselves to speak out at will and as often as they wish. I wish that they would explain under what standing order they find this possible. The member for North Island has the floor. He takes full responsibility for every word he speaks.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to say to the Minister of Transportation and Highways that if he doesn't get started on the North Island bypass of Campbell River and Courtenay very soon, we're going to have some very, very serious problems in that part of our world. This is a very local issue, and I don't expect other members of the Legislature to get involved in this particular issue, aside from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). She and I have a commitment to the people there, as did, incidentally, the other candidates from all political parties who ran against the member for Comox and me. It is a commitment to as quickly as possible get started on that bypass.

I said this last summer, and I'll repeat it very briefly. I've driven on just about every highway in this province many times in the course of the various jobs that I've held. I can tell you that the worst, the most dangerous, the most difficult piece of highway that exists is in and around and between Courtenay and Campbell River. Mr. Speaker, I just urge you, when you're talking to the Minister of Transportation and Highways in your office, to do everything you can to make sure that some contracts are let within months, because that's important. When we get to the estimates, if he hasn't already announced the launching of that program, both the member for Comox and I will have much more to say. I'll leave that for the moment. There are a lot of highways issues in my riding, but I think the highways estimates are the more appropriate time to discuss that.

The next issue that is of major concern to residents in North Island.... Again I refer to the comments that were made by CBC on its newscast tonight. A lot of what we see in microcosm, Mr. Speaker, in our ridings affects the whole province, and what you see in a small scale in a riding, you can see in a large scale in the province.

We have an application in Campbell River, not an application there particularly, but an application to the Minister of Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources — at least the one who is the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — for a coal mine development in Campbell River, the salmon capital of the world. Do you know what this coal mine company is proposing to do? They are proposing, right in the middle of town and yards from the best fishing hole in this country, to build a coal-loading dock. We have heard nothing to date from the government on their view on this coal mine proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong!

MR. GABELMANN: We have heard nothing in Campbell River publicly from the government about this coal mining proposal that has three serious elements. I look, Mr. Speaker, at the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), because he seems agitated.

We have a proposal to develop a coal mine that has high sulphur content in an area adjacent to the Campbell River, the Quinsam River and the Oyster River — all major salmon rivers in the northern central part of Vancouver Island. If the leaching from that mine seeps into those rivers, we will destroy the salmon fishing in Campbell River, and that cannot be allowed. As far as I'm concerned, it will not be allowed. I've talked to the officials of the government at the staff level about this proposal. We can hear all the stuff we want in this Legislature from the ministries or the ministers who are involved, but I have spent some time talking to some staff people, and I know they share my concern. But what do we see in the budget speech? We see a line about increased coal development, and if you don't think that doesn't send shivers up the back of every resident of Campbell River, you haven't seen anything yet.

Not just the Campbell River and District Labour Council, not just the municipality of Campbell River, the district council, in an all-but-unanimous vote, not just the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona, but also the chamber of commerce have come out against this proposal. And what has the government said? Absolutely nothing. Let me say, very clearly, very calmly, very quietly, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the government who have responsibility for coal development in this province: that mine cannot go ahead if it leaches; it cannot go ahead if the trucking is through the residential areas of Campbell River as now proposed; and it certainly cannot go ahead if the spit — and those members involved will know what I mean when I say the spit — is chosen as the location for loading 55,000-ton coal ships on their way to Japan, where once again we export our raw resources. That mine, under the present application, cannot and will not go ahead, and there will be lots of debate in this House on that come the future if there's any attempt by the government to push that through.

Now I promised the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), if she wants to come back from her office, that I'd have a chat with her. I've got seven minutes, I believe — maybe six.

In my travelling around North Island in the last 15 months, when people asked me to identify the single most serious issue, it has been — and continues to be and is increasingly so — the absolute failure of the Ministry of Human Resources, at the minister's level, not the staff level, to provide adequate staffing in North Island. Do you know

[ Page 1452 ]

that in a period of three and a half months last summer we had four different district supervisors in the Ministry of Human Resources office in Port Hardy?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, one of the members opposite mentions my comments a few years ago on the labour legislation. I think there's one thing in common tonight with my comments in those days: that is that I am speaking from the bottom of my heart and the bottom of my guts. I don't ever expect to agree with everybody all the time, and that includes my colleagues and it certainly includes members across the way.

If you were a social welfare client, and there are some in this province, in Port Hardy in 1979 between the spring — April, May, June — and Christmas, do you know how many different social workers you would have had to report to? Seven! One social welfare client would have had seven different social workers to report to. That is absolutely shocking, it is absolutely disgraceful, and it cannot be allowed to continue. Yet what do we see in this budget? We see nominal increases in social welfare. We see inflation plus a bit, and that's all. That's their commitment to human services. That's their commitment to social services.

Do you know what they are saying in the Ministry of Human Resources, except they haven't got the courage to put it in writing? They're saying to their workers: "You have two responsibilities as workers in this department. You have child protection — that's a mandated responsibility — and you have social allowance, SA — that's a mandated responsibility. Don't do anything else." The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) laughs, Mr. Speaker, but she should do as I have done: canvass social workers all around this province in the last few weeks and the last few months, particularly in my riding but not just in my riding.

The social workers, by and large, as government employees, are very careful. They mostly say: "Look, I don't want to talk to you, because I work for the government. I can't say it."

I say to them: "Is it true that the government is going backward on its promises, and is not moving in a preventive direction?"

They say: "Yes, it's true. We are mandated to do two things: child protection and SA — social allowance — and nothing else." If ever there was a department of government that had a responsibility and a mandate to do preventive work in human services and social services in this province, it's the Ministry of Human Resources. And what are they doing? Absolutely nothing!

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that makes me angry, because kids are dying in this province. Children are being abused physically and are dying, and many hundreds of others are being abused, not only physically but psychologically, and are suffering permanent damage. Many of those kids will never, ever be allowed to live normal lives. Why? Because the kind of family counselling that should be available is not available, because the kind of community services that should be available are not available.

Nowhere is it more clear than in Port Hardy and area, where one social welfare client could have, in a period of eight months, seven different social workers, albeit the fifth of those social workers had also acted as the second, but she came back to work with her baby in her arms just after having given birth, so she could assist the overload. She came to the office as a half-time worker with her baby in her arms, working for that government as a half-time worker to try to help solve the problems of social services in that area. If that isn't disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, then I haven't heard of anything else in all this debate that is disgraceful. That is the most disgraceful thing I have ever heard!

Do you know what I hear when I talk to staff people in the ministry? "Oh, we can't get workers to go to Port Hardy." That's the response. "We can't get social workers to go to remote communities. The graduates are spoiled. They want to stay in Vancouver." Do you know why they want to stay in Vancouver or Victoria? It's because if they go to Port Hardy or a lot of other areas in this province, their caseload is going to be twice as high. They're not going to be able to do the job they should do, and when they go to those towns they have to pay $550 or $600 per month rent for single accommodation. Let me give you a contrast. Why is it in this province that it is only social welfare that has this high politicization? Why do we never hear about probation services? Do you know why we don't hear about the probation services? I'm going to say the second good thing tonight about this government. It is because both the Attorneys-General that we've had under that government — the Attorney-General we've had under this government, and the Attorney-General prior to 1972 — did not involve themselves in the day-to-day operations of the probation services; they leave it to itself. It is because probation, as one service in social services, has been non-politicized, and therefore it is effective. In Port Hardy their workers stay.

Do you know what they also do in probation? I hope I'm not telling tales out of school, Mr. Speaker. They provide living accommodation at a reduced rate to keep people there, and they make sure the caseload is reasonable. What happens in Human Resources? Exactly the opposite. There is a $72 a month remote living cost adjustment. It doesn't even meet the fuel bills in those communities, much less food and housing.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a rot or a cancer in this government, it is in the Ministry of Human Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this note. I'm not going to talk in detail about a three-year old white girl in Port Hardy who lost her life on January 3, because the trial for murder comes up on Tuesday. Unfortunately, the stepmother is being charged with murder. Mr. Speaker, if Port Hardy had had over the years the level of social services that some other communities in this province do enjoy and all of this province should enjoy, that child might still be alive.

Mr. Speaker, that's a serious charge. I have stewed about saying or not saying this for some days now. I have called people in the area, social workers, colleagues, and I have said: "Should I say this or not?" I have decided to refrain tonight from talking about the details of the case, because there is a murder charge starting on Tuesday in Port Hardy. A three-year old child was beaten and killed, and the courts will determine how that happened. But let me tell you, from my knowledge of the facts involved, the Ministry of Human Resources — not the staff, because they are treated so badly, they're not given the resources, there aren't enough of them and they're not given the backup.... A person who doesn't have any experience in MHR in this province is expected to go and be a district supervisor in a raw, remote, rural transient community. It's.... Mr. Speaker, I would have had to withdraw the words I wanted to use. It is unconscionable, and it must not be allowed. For that Minister of

[ Page 1453 ]

Human Resources to go around this province on that phony $44,000 PR gimmick, to get her picture in the paper, makes me bloody sick, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I believe it's the appropriate time after a member has taken his seat to correct erroneous statements associated with his talk.

MR. SPEAKER: Briefly, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'll be brief, Mr. Speaker. The member has criticized the allocation of funds associated with the handicapped people and senior citizens in this province on the basis of an erroneous newspaper report attributed to one Mayor Volrich of the city of Vancouver. He said that...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm listening for the correction.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...Mr. Volrich has attributed that there is only $1 million — and the member repeated it as fact as well — for the purpose of handicapped and senior citizens' housing in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: And the fact is?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to correct that statement, Mr. Speaker, because he's 500 percent out. The allocation for senior citizens' housing is....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He doesn't want to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm listening for the correction. We've heard the error; now we must have the correction. Because other than that, I must call this debate. The correction is?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, information is available to the member who's just misquoted the fact — information suggesting that there is $5.2 million for senior citizens' and handicapped housing, a 33 percent increase over last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, we have the correction. A further correction?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That corrects that point. Point number two....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is something bothering you?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We're on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, he says that campground fees in British Columbia were changed or revised on the basis of pressure put on me by the private campground operators in British Columbia. I want to refute that. That statement is a false statement on the part of that member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, whenever we accept corrections to be made at the end of a speech — are you all listening? — we have no provision for it, either in our standing orders or in the authorities which support our standing orders. It is simply a convention of this House, and therefore when corrections are made we cannot introduce any new subject, but we must simply state the erroneous statement made and the correction. Other than that, I must warn that it is debate, and for members who have not already spoken in that debate they will lose their place in the debate, and therefore it is important that the correction be brief.

On a point of order, the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under standing order 39: "If anything shall come into question touching the conduct of any member or his right to hold his seat, he may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate." I'm not sure whether that one applies, but I would like to raise the question regarding a statement that was made during debate concerning a TIDSA grant. A member implied of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), that she discriminated against an Indian band and she withheld a TIDSA grant because the applicant was an Indian band, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot, under the provision of a correction, ask for a withdrawal, but what we can do is allow the correction. On a point of order, the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my place in this debate. No other member was standing. I presume that's in order. Is that in order?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the last speaker, and I believe that I heard him say that no member in this government was interested in preserving the ecosystem of the north part of the Island, particularly Campbell River. I'd like to inform the member....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is a correction?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you better believe it's a correction. I'm not going to let that carpetbagger get away with making false statements in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I must have the error.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I, and this government, and the team I work for are very concerned about the environment in this province, and it was because of our concern that we commissioned....

[ Page 1454 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is a debate that we are entering into. I must have the error and the correction.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The error was that he said nobody on this side of the House was concerned about the environment of Campbell River. Because of my concern and that of the team I work with, our concern for the environment in Campbell River, the B.C. Harbours Board, for which I happen to be chairman, Mr. Speaker, commissioned a study of the Campbell River estuary to facilitate that development and to make sure that this government showed their concern and that no development in that area hurt the environment of Campbell River. I'm not going to have that carpetbagger make false statements in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As an example of what I just warned about, it was simply a debate. I recognize the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: State your point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to seek your guidance. The member for North Island, I believe it is, made a statement in his speech that in my opinion, as an hon. member of this House.... He implied that the Minister of Tourism discriminated against an Indian band which had applied for a TIDSA grant. I find that offensive, and I think all members on this side of the House find that offensive, and I ask him to withdraw. Mr. Speaker, I'm seeking guidance. I didn't rise at the time the member stated it, and I'm asking now if you would ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the point. On the point raised by the Minister of Agriculture, there is no instrument that you have put in my hands whereby I can ask for a withdrawal of a statement simply because it is incorrect. The only time I can ask for a withdrawal of a statement is if it is unparliamentary. I quote again: "Every member takes full responsibility for the statements made in this House."

Is there another point of order?

HON. MR. MAIR: No. I wonder if I might, with leave of the House, make an introduction to perhaps calm everything down.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I noticed in the House a gentleman known to all of us here, I'm sure, somebody who has recently suffered the fate that many in this House have already suffered and all of us sometime will — that of being a losing candidate in an election. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Bill Otway of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, who is in the gallery tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Environment — please proceed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might correct the Minister of Health in his remarks in his introduction of Mr. Otway. He said he suffered the fate all of us are going to suffer — having been defeated in an election. I hope some of us have the dignity to retire without having suffered a defeat. However, some of us would like to stay until the bitter end.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off with congratulating you on your re-election to the office of Speaker, and extend my deepest sympathies to your deputy (Mr. Davidson), a man who will, once this particular motion has passed, live to rue the day that I first wrote him a note from the table and asked him if he would like to come up and try his hand running Committee of Supply. He will rue that day. The office is pretty nice, but it isn't worth it. No, I enjoyed the challenge, and I'm sure that the member for Delta will do an excellent job in conducting Committee of Supply. I'm sure this year Committee of Supply will be as long as it has been in years past and I know he'll have the able assistance of the members of the table.

Mr. Speaker, I was, as are all new ministers, congratulated by several members opposite and colleagues on the government side of the House. I would like to thank all those people who have extended to me their congratulations for my elevation to the office of Minister of Environment. I must say Mr. Otway and I have already had our meeting, as have the members of the Greenpeace association and many, many other organizations, and I am finding the ministry to be completely fascinating. But I think that my comments might better be left for my estimates, which, hopefully, will be along in a month or so.

I do have a few things to say. One of the privileges of being appointed to the cabinet is to, of course, have your workload increased. In that particular regard, I have been somewhat negligent of my constituents. In the job that one takes on when learning about the ministry, one isn't able to service the constituency in the way one would like, and in that regard I have a special thanks for the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), who has done an exemplary job and who has done more than his share of the duties that we share in our constituency, making up for my absence. I have received no end of compliments from members of our constituency about his work, and I am really pleased that we have always operated as a team, as did Mr. Strongman when he and I shared the honour of being the members for Vancouver South. The present second member for Vancouver South and I have what I consider to be a good working relationship, and I would like to thank him publicly.

I regret that during last week's debate, over what might have been termed a frivolous motion, there wasn't sufficient time for me to rise in my place and speak against the motion. Suffice to say that discussion is no longer acceptable on the motion, but if I did have the opportunity to speak to the motion, why, of course, I would oppose it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the privileges I have had since becoming a member of the executive council was to be appointed as the chairman of the cabinet committee for British Columbia Place. It is in that regard that I would like to make a few

[ Page 1455 ]

remarks this evening. As members will know, two years ago the Provincial Secretary made a representation to Paris to the Bureau of International Expositions to apply for a World's Fair to be hosted by the city of Vancouver on the hundredth anniversary of the Trans-Canada Railway and also of the hundredth anniversary of the city of Vancouver, which will be in 1986. In that regard, a very professional presentation was put forward by ministry staff to the Bureau of International Expositions, and while all members are aware, I'm sure, having read all the correspondence on it, I think perhaps I could just bring them up to date a little bit.

One of the things that was proposed in that presentation was the use of three different sites in the city of Vancouver for Transpo '86, one being the exhibition grounds, the second being the old Jericho site left over from Habitat and originally left over from World War II, and the third being the trade and convention centre. The one thing that the Bureau of International Expositions had to complain about was the fact that in all their World's Fairs, they liked to have one site and one site only. But for that, the city of Vancouver was in prime contention, and especially the province of British Columbia. We were told that an agreement in principle could be reached if we could find a single common site within the city of Vancouver to host the World's Fair.

I have had the opportunity to visit the World's Fair in Montreal in 1967 — and I've also had the opportunity to visit the one in Osaka and the one in Brussels — and the one in New York as well, for that matter. If there's one thing that all previous World's Fairs have had in common, it's that they've taken a piece of vacant land in a remote area, connected it to the city by some form of transit and staged a six-month grandiose fair, and at the end of the fair there's always a great emotional charge as someone says: "Why do we put this thing to bed? Why not keep it alive? It's been so terrific; it's brought the people of the city together." But because of its location and its proximity to the centres of population, in Osaka, in Montreal, in Brussels and New York, and in many other locations of the World's Fair, it dies.

In Vancouver we have a very large area on the north side of False Creek, 164 acres in the hands of Marathon Realty and the Canadian Pacific Railway and 32 acres in the hands of B.C. Hydro, which are largely underutilized, and the land that's owned by Marathon Realty is no longer of paramount importance to the railway. The Premier of this province made an agreement with Marathon, an agreement-in-principle, to exchange lands that were surplus to the needs of the government for those lands, so that we could not only host Transpo '86 but also have a place for B.C. Place. Now it's not something for Vancouver Centre; it's not something for Vancouver South; it's not something for the city of Vancouver. It's something for the whole of the province.

The member speaking previously mentioned the fact that the press are a little upset because they're having to report things from rural constituencies, and it isn't too interesting in the press. Well, I can assure you, when I was a backbencher and stood up and spoke about my constituency, it wasn't very interesting either, because they didn't report that. So we all suffer the same fate. And I'm sure if you spoke to the member for Vancouver Centre as he sits in the eye of the storm, you'd find he doesn't get much coverage on his own constituency.

But I'm going to tell you about B.C. Place, because B.C. Place is going to be the landlord and Transpo '86 is going to be the tenant — and we hope we don't have to go to landlord and tenant negotiations. But what's going to happen is that we're going to have a plan in 1980 and 1981 that will be suitable for 1987, 1988 and beyond. If there's one thing that has marked all of the previous World's Fairs, it is that when the World's Fair is over there has been no comprehensive development plan that moulds the World's Fair into the future of the city. Well, by doing a little advance planning, by building the amphitheatre, by planning the transit and by planning the permanent buildings, we can host what I know will be the most exciting thing to happen in this province in this half of this century, and end up with a residual benefit for all of the people of the province that will be a lasting benefit and one which we will all come to enjoy.

I might remind members who are familiar with the city of Vancouver that the Arbutus corridor railway line, or the interurban line, as it's been popularly known — and members will know that — commonly considered to be owned by B.C. Hydro, is not owned by B.C. Hydro, but is in fact owned by the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CPR. And as members will know, light rapid transit is a major concern of this government; it's mentioned often in the budget; and it's a concern we're going to be especially involved with at B.C. Place. One of the things we have to negotiate with Marathon in our land swap is the acquisition of the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway — so that we will have done something that no other major city has been able to do. Their major expense has been, aside from raising the funds to make a necessary rapid transit system, to acquire the rights-of-way. The major right-of-way for at least one of the lines — a secondary line, I'll admit, but it's one of the lines — is sitting there underutilized now, and it's one of the things that British Columbia Place will negotiate as part of our swap with Marathon. When we have negotiated that, then it'll be turned over to the Urban Transit Authority for their demonstration line, and perhaps the first operational line, depending on the choice of the people that run the UTA.

I might also remind members — I spoke recently with the member for Vancouver Centre, and he wasn't familiar with the fact that Vancouver does already have a subway in terms of the Dunsmuir tunnel, but I'm sure after my little talk that he drove round to see it the other day — there is an existing tunnel which connects the SeaBus terminal with the location of British Columbia Place. That tunnel has been there for some time, accommodating steam locomotives, as the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), I'm sure, will.... He's probably been through it, it connects the roundhouse with the main line. That particular tunnel exists; to widen that tunnel is not an engineering impossibility; in fact it's not even particularly difficult.

We have already the rudiments, if we care to use them — and we do care to use them — of a light rapid transit system in the major metropolitan area of this province. It's something that's been spoken about in the House so many times I can't remember, and now we have a mandate to do something about it. And let me tell all members that British Columbia Place, once we establish the location of the amphitheatre and the rapid transit lines, is going to shape the future of the city of Vancouver for the next 50 years. Once those major components are in place, it will totally revitalize the city in the downtown area. B.C. Place will be to the south end of the downtown core what Stanley Park is to the north end of the downtown core. It's going to be something we can all be immensely proud of.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the jobs that the

[ Page 1456 ]

Premier asked me to do was to find someone to head up this organization, and with the assistance of the members of the Action Committee for British Columbia Place, I was able to acquire the services of one Mr. Alvin Narod. He is a highly regarded citizen of this province, who has taken it on as his mandate and his challenge to complete this project on time and under budget. I wish him well. I know he will do an excellent job. In the coming weeks, members of the committee will be appointing directors to work with him in this very important challenge.

You will notice in the budget that there is a further $25 million in addition to last year's $25 million to go toward the construction of this amphitheatre. I might point out that the amphitheatre is not to be considered a sports palace, nor a home for baseball, football or soccer. This building must be a multiple-use facility. We must try to make every effort to use it between 300 and 360 days of the year, and therefore our mandate is to construct a building that has the greatest scope of potential uses.

Many members of this House have been to Seattle to see the Kingdome. The man who runs the Kingdome is a Canadian, and he is very anxious to help us. We are going to be able to benefit from the errors, such as they are, that were made in the other major stadiums around the world.

I must point out one or two things that the previous speaker mentioned about Campbell River and the Quinsam coal property. The company did approach government, and at the recommendation of government they withdrew their application to use the spit, and they withdrew their application to drive trucks through the middle of the city with coal. The members of the city council know about it, and I'm somewhat puzzled to know why the member wouldn't be aware of that. Everyone else in the area seems to know about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't been there.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I don't know if he's been there or not. There's no question that there are major environmental concerns when a coal mine is constructed, especially in that area, but if they can meet the very stringent requirements of the Ministry of Environment and all of the other guidelines, the coal guidelines, I see no reason why they shouldn't proceed, provided they have agreement with the local municipality, which I'm quite convinced they're going to get with their new program.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Whip looking at me with his jaundiced eye, because he did ask me to be brief.

I did have calls from three constituents, as a result of the speech from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who said that members of our party are motivated by "money, power and greed." I got calls from supporters of mine. One was a minister, one a nurse, and the other a teacher, and they asked me if I really considered those to be their motivating factors. I asked them what they thought their motivating factors were in life, and they said, "incentive, challenge and accomplishment."

There are not many things that get me upset, but if that's the description we have of anybody who tries to make it on their own in free enterprise — if the motivation is money, power and greed — well, I don't know that any of us would really want to be associated with that. But with those of us who have been involved over the years with the free enterprise system, I have seen very little indication of anybody being motivated by those three principles. I must admit that if a thing doesn't make any money, it's a money-loser, and you either get a grant from government or go out of business, and I'd just as soon take my lumps and go out of business.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of things I could say. I'd like to talk at great length about the environment and some of the things that I've been able to accomplish in the short time that I've been the minister, but time does not permit. This is the debate on the budget, and I'm sure there'll be ample time during the estimates to travel on at great length. I must say the one thing that does concern me, as I hold this budget, is when I discover that the province of British Columbia must import $5 million worth of waste paper every year to make up our shortfall. When I sit around this building wondering why, I just counsel all members to ensure that the waste papers from their offices are recycled through the waste management branch of the Ministry of Environment so that we can right this disgraceful wrong of having to import waste paper from the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, and I'm sure I'll have another opportunity. Needless to say, I support the budget 100 percent, support the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and, of course, support the Premier. Thank you very much.

MR. SKELLY: Before I begin, I'd like to introduce a few guests I have in the House tonight. I'd like to introduce my wife, Alexandra, who has come down to watch the proceedings. Mr. Speaker, you'll also find somewhere in the galleries, or approaching the galleries, a former minister of public works in the previous NDP government, Mr. Bill Hartley.

AN HON. MEMBER: He left as soon as you got up.

MR. SKELLY: No. He's coming back now that he's heard that I'm up. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker of the House gave Mr. Hartley a copy of the book about the parliament buildings, which we all received recently, in recognition of the fact that it was Mr. Hartley who began the renovations of this building, which was allowed to deteriorate so badly over the previous 20 years.

This is my first occasion to speak in the House, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the high office of Deputy Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the ministers opposite who were appointed since the last sitting of the Legislature on their appointments to cabinet.

I would especially like to thank the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), whose actions in appointing a mediator in a very difficult strike in Port Alberni — and a very patient and persistent mediator — helped to shorten that strike and resolve some of the problems that had grown up between two groups of my constituents.

But in the tone of the debate that has been going on recently I would also like to congratulate all those ministers and backbenchers on the other side who have been cleared, acquitted or otherwise cleansed through a series of royal commissions, special inquiries and other proceedings — either by investigating themselves or through other methods of being cleansed that have been set up by the group opposite to retain the semblance of honesty.

Just to respond to some of the things that have been said in the budget debate within the last day or two, I would like to draw attention to some of the comments made by the member

[ Page 1457 ]

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) when he began speaking earlier today in the budget debate. He criticized the NDP for the way they were dealing with the budget — they were all critical of the budget. He said they were all saying the same things. He said it was not a party of individuals; we were all criticizing the budget.

And then, in absolute contradiction to what he had said previously, he said it was a party full of divisions. I couldn't believe it. What absolute foolishness! It was emphasized by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who at one time had voted against legislation. He courageously stood up in the House and from the heart, from deep-seated feelings, voted against legislation that was brought in by the NDP when we were in government. He took a courageous and individual position.

This is a party of individuals, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it a party of individuals who believe in questioning; they don't accept anything without questioning; they don't submit to authority, as it appears they do on the other side. We are a party that believes in questioning, that believes in individuality, that believes in the right of our members to support, on conscience, what they believe to be right. On numerous occasions people in this party have stood up separate from the rest of the party, criticized other people in the party and voted against the majority in this party. Why do we still come out as a united party? Because we respect the right of our individual members to differ with the majority and to differ with other members. Mr. Member for Central Fraser Valley, through you, Mr. Speaker; that was my understanding of what democracy was all about.

When I watch that group on the other side stand up to defend the budget — and most of them haven't read it, if their speeches are any indication — they all sound the same. They all sound like the lowest common denominator.

There was a book written after the war which grew out of the attacks on the Jews. It was written by a group under a Dr. Frenkel-Brunswik, and it was called The Authoritarian Personality. One of the constellations of characteristics of the authoritarian personality that was identified in this book was a dominant-submissive trait. They submit to those they believe to be in authority — they submit to the richer people, to the multinational corporations, to those who they believe to be the pillars of the community — and they try to dominate the other ones, submission on the one hand, domination on the other. Submit to Austin Taylor, fire Jack Kelly — that kind of thing. Worship those who are higher than you because they are richer, they are bigger, they talk louder, and put those other ones under your thumb — "menial reprimands." That is the kind of party I see opposite.

This is the party of individualism. This is the party that respects your right to differ. This is the party that respects your right to criticize as well as to accept, and that is the party of submission. I challenge any of you to stand up — not necessarily against the budget. I know the kind of restrictions that are on a government party member in a House like this, and I don't expect you to vote against the budget. But I do expect you to come down and differ with the government on individual differences that your constituents may have with the government. I see a member here for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), and even a member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — the two easy pieces, they call them. These people are faced with a serious problem in their constituencies over the Site C dam, a dam that will cost this province severely in loss of farmland, won't produce that much more energy, will create serious problems in that area….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to withdraw the statement that I'm a commie bastard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, l did not hear the remark. But if the remark was made, an immediate withdrawal must be made.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recall that when the NDP government was in office, the backbenchers in that government came down and challenged their cabinet over things that were happening in their ridings and made demands in this Legislature for improvements in their ridings.

I look at the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Mr. Speaker, and at some of the material that he writes in his local newspaper....

MR. BRUMMET: Say so if you're against hydro dams.

MR. SKELLY: I am against the Site C dam. What's your position on it? You haven't stood up in the House and said what your position is. Mr. Speaker, at least I have the courage to be on record against the Site C dam.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. The member for Alberni has the floor. Would you please allow him to continue.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, reading the newspapers from Burns Lake, the Lakes District News and the Smithers newspapers, and watching what the member for Omineca says when he's in his riding and what he says down here — he makes strong statements up in the riding. He's going to Victoria to demand specific answers on the Kemano II project. He's going to stand up in this Legislature and defend his constituents.... Not me, Mr. Member. Your constituents are opposed to the Kemano II project. I'm opposed to it too, but your constituents are opposed to the project. When did that member ever have the courage to stand up in this House and differ with the muddled policy of his party over the Kemano II project? Never.

MR. KEMPF: When has it been debated?

MR. SKELLY: It's being debated right now, Mr. Member. You have an opportunity to get on the record now — through you, Mr. Speaker — to say that you're against the Kemano II project. If not, what kind of supporter are you? What kind of member from Omineca are you? If a person makes a statement like that to his people in his constituency, he should at least have the courage to come down and make that statement in a public body like the Legislative Assembly

[ Page 1458 ]

of British Columbia.

He was going to complain about a 7 percent increase in Hydro rates. He was going to make lots of noises about that — vigorously opposed. When did he ever say a thing in this Legislature to contradict Robert Bonner, the true leader of that government? When did he ever say a thing in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to that 7 percent increase in Hydro rates brought down before the vaunted B.C. Utilities Commission, which according to our understanding of the energy policy was going to be ruling on all these price increases by energy agencies such as B.C. Hydro?

We respect the courage of a member's convictions. We respect the courage when a member stands up in his place and votes against the rest of his party on a bill that in good conscience he cannot support, even though it was placed in the House by his government, by his leadership. We had members here who stood to vote against the leadership, and they're respected members in this party still. I've never seen that happen on the other side, where they call themselves "individualists."

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days we've been listening to a criticism from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) over the province of British Columbia under the New Democratic Party when he says that our policies drove drilling rigs out of British Columbia. He said it wasn't until Social Credit came back to office that all of those drilling rigs started moving back here. "The Drilling Rigs Return to Northern Part of B.C.," January 3, 1976; he was in office at the time. "Oil and natural gas exploration has returned in northeastern British Columbia. Despite complaints of the mining industry about the NDP government, the impetus for resumption came before the Social Credit victory. Operations got underway again after a natural gas deal with the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and introduction of new royalty regulations, producing a better net return on oil. The moves were made in the fall under the New Democratic Party government."

MR. BRUMMET: The rigs don't come until it freezes, and that's not until December or January.

MR. SKELLY: Read the newspaper, Mr. Member. Mr. Speaker, after discussing some of the things that have been brought up in the Legislature within the past couple of days, I'd like to go back to the budget, and talk about some of these spending priorities of the government. Like the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I would like to recognize some of the good things that the government has done in this budget, good things that will hopefully have a good effect on my riding. One thing that we do look forward to is the impact of the downtown improvement program. There are similar programs in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and in some of the other provinces, and I think it's timely that this one has been brought to British Columbia, especially for Port Alberni.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm told I don't have order in the House. But we do, Mr. Speaker, appreciate the fact that the downtown revitalization program has been brought in, and we do hope that in Port Alberni, where the downtown has been allowed to degenerate over past years because of developments in fringe areas, this new program will be of some assistance. Much as I criticize the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), one of the things he has done is make it possible in a joint federal-provincial program for us to hire a fairly competent economic development commissioner who can take advantage of programs like that to the benefit of the citizens of Port Alberni. I do hope to be in touch with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to try to take advantage of some of those programs for the citizens of Port Alberni.

The other indication in the budget that I felt was a positive indication, and again supporting the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), was the fact that new concessions were granted on sales tax to some alternative energy equipment, and to energy conservation equipment. Over the past three or four years, as some members will recall, I've been making speeches in the Legislature and elsewhere supporting the whole idea of energy conservation as the best and most economic source of energy for the province of British Columbia over the next two decades. While I see this as kind of a token beginning, I don't knock token beginnings, because at least they are the first step, but I think a great deal more priority has to be given by this government to the whole principle of energy conservation. Really, the amount of money that's included in the present budget for this purpose is minimal. It will probably have almost no effect at all, but it will be an encouragement to people who are interested in conservation, an encouragement that hopefully this government is going to do something in the future.

But I am concerned, and I would like to express these concerns here, prior to any kind of finalizing of these programs, to possibly assist the government in a constructive way to develop these programs so that they will have the best effect for energy conservation. I'd like to take, for example, the $10 million Energy Development Fund. Now according to the budget speech, the reason for the fund was to support demonstration and development of alternatives to gasoline, as well as to enhance existing government energy conservation and oil substitution programs. I think the fact that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is involved in part of the allocation of this money is a tremendous mistake, because that minister appears to believe in the high-technology solutions to energy problems, and those solutions have not really worked out in the past in any place they have been tried. At one time he was talking about bringing a fusion reactor to British Columbia, a reactor that has never produced any net energy at all and takes a tremendous amount of energy to operate. I think that's a silly move for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to make. I don't think there is any future for this province in research which is designed to get gasoline from coal or to gasify coal, compared to the energy returns that we're going to realize by investing money in energy conservation equipment and retrofitting of existing buildings, factories, etc.

I would just like to read a short section out of a book entitled Energy Future, which was put together by the Energy Program Project at the Harvard Business School:

"By the early seventies more discouraging estimates for the cost of getting oil and gas from coal emerged. The economic attractiveness mentioned by Schumacher was a mirage, and the flush of optimism vanished when all participants discovered that liquefied or gasified coal was much more expensive

[ Page 1459 ]

than petroleum or natural gas. A respected engineering study of six gasification processes in 1976 found synthetic gas costs ranging from $3.88 to $6.72 per million Btus, compared to a regulated interstate natural gas price for newly found gas of about $1.40."

So it's between three and six times the price of natural gas, and unregulated interestate gas hovered around $2 per million Btus. In 1979 estimates for synthetic crude were over $30 per barrel. So a tremendous amount of money would have to be spent to produce a very high-quality product, when it's well known that more energy can be delivered to the province of British Columbia with a lower investment per energy unit produced if we go into conservation.

There are other funds allocated in the budget to energy — $1.5 million to recover more oil from existing wells. As far as I can see, that's virtually a meaningless drop in the bucket. The other was for the Sierra-Yoyo Road, and I guess that's one of the highways in the northern part of the province that will cost $1.8 million....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It's a road through the Sierra to the yo-yos. That must be to North and South Peace.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: My brother should be here tonight, Champ; we're both bigger than you.

All he allocates for energy conservation and renewable technology out of provincial funding is $3.1 million, combined with the federal contribution of $3.1 million, for about $6.2 million. In total, when you include all the tax exemptions, the maximum amount this government is going to spend on energy conservation is about $21.3 million, and as a part of the budget, about two-fifths of 1 percent of the budget, for one of our most critical commodities and one of the most critical problems facing this province today — the use of energy. Not all of that $21.3 million is for conservation, as I mentioned before.

The government talks about conservation, but they do very little else. Really what we see allocated to energy conservation in this budget is little more than window dressing. Real evidence of serious concern on the part of this government is exhibited in the amount of money they are willing to spend on a program in order to deliver the results. The comparison which shows the real energy priorities of the Social Credit government is the comparison between what they are spending on energy conservation — a pittance, two-fifths of 1 percent of the budget — and what they are spending in terms of debt on B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro's annual operating costs are around $800 million a year, and this year we are going to be authorizing Hydro to go into debt another $750 million a year. In a single year we're willing to spend on wasteful hydroelectric energy something in the neighbourhood of $2 billion, and on energy conservation maybe $6 million at the most. Those funds that we are borrowing for B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, will be going into some capital-intensive, debt-intensive, environmentally damaging projects such as the one supported by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and the one supported by the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Site C Dam project, also the Iskut-Stikine; and one of the most ridiculous projects of all, in terms of its deliverance of energy to Vancouver Island, in terms of its destruction of jobs on Vancouver Island and in terms of what it's going to cost the people of British Columbia, the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project.

Let me just outline for the members here tonight, Mr. Speaker, some of the problems associated with the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project and what effect it will have on job creation in the province. This information comes from B.C. Hydro. The first bit of information comes from a report that they haven't released yet, on the route selection study for the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project, which talks about employment created by that project. They haven't released the study yet, but it says this: "Post-construction employment supplementary to normal B.C. Hydro crews based in the region, minimal. Some additional work generated through periodic maintenance of right-of-way; in other words, pesticide-spraying and tree-cutting. No additional permanent employment in regional offices related directly to the proposed facilities is seen by B.C. Hydro." The maximum amount of work available to British Columbians on this job, Mr. Speaker: 400 man-years at total salaries of $10.5 million. This is out of a project that Hydro now admits will cost $799 million and, probably at the time of completion, well over a billion and probably approaching a billion and a half.

That's what these people consider job-creation programs. Where are the jobs going from the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project? Note that the estimates do not include any manpower requirements for underwater cable installation, as this will be handled totally by the foreign supplier on a single contract. Some unskilled labour may be hired locally by the supplier, but the skilled labour for this aspect of construction is expected to be imported. We're importing labour to the province to build that powerline project.

Where are we going to get the materials? This is a public letter from B.C. Hydro this time, where they tell what percentage of material will be purchased outside the province of British Columbia and what percentage will be provided locally. Substation materials: 10 percent, the rest purchased outside the province of British Columbia. Overhead lines: 35 percent produced in British Columbia. In the case of the submarine cable contracts, approximately 10 percent of the installation work will be subcontracted to local people. The balance of the work will be performed by offshore contractors. Hydro is going to be importing workers to British Columbia to lay the underwater cable sections of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) should investigate this immediately. IBEW is going to be looking into it, and they are now threatening that if Hydro doesn't change the policy on these contracts, nobody is going to work on that project.

This is treacherous, borrowing $1 billion on our credit outside the province of British Columbia, outside the country, paying interest on that money outside the country, and using most of the money to hire workers and buy materials outside the country. On every project this government has been involved in they've created more jobs in Italy and Norway than they've created in the province of British Columbia. The Cheekye-Dunsmuir project is no isolated example, Mr. Speaker. I would urge the Minister of Labour to look into that situation, because we're taking a utility's borrowing authority and borrowing money offshore to create jobs offshore. It's silly. It's bungling. It's economically insane for any government to get involved in that kind of a project.

[ Page 1460 ]

Mr. Speaker, I have proposed over the past few years a number of conservation efforts that could be made on Vancouver Island that would produce more jobs....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I would urge you to call the House to order, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we should reconsider your election [laughter] — either that or persuade the minister to reconsider the bridge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The committee will come to order. [Laughter.]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite talk about supporting brownouts. I've never advocated that, and that is not a necessary alternative. Because you don't support a particular powerline project or because you don't support a particular pipeline project.... I have always taken the trouble, in a constructive way, Mr. Member, to advocate an alternative, and a tested alternative. I would like to propose an alternative, and that is a substantial energy conservation program on Vancouver Island. What is wrong, for these people who believe in the work ethic, with the ethic of doing more with less, of getting more energy by investing less capital? It even fulfils the terms of having a good bottom line.

Most people, especially people on the opposite side who seem to live in the old petroleum years of the 1940s or possibly the Depression years of the 1930s, don't understand, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada we waste 50 percent of the energy we produce. According to the OECD we are the worst energy pigs on the globe. We are the worst energy wasters on the globe per capita as well as in national terms. People in this country are involved in energy conservation in a big way. People in the United States, who waste 40 percent of the energy they produce, are engaged in conservation in the same way. Just let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker, of what Canadian companies have done to save energy, and let me give examples of what some American companies and American policies have done to save energy. I'm talking here about energy conservation, a principle talked about in the budget but not really adopted as a budgetary policy.

Between 1978 and 1985 the American Environmental Protection Agency set certain mileage standards for cars — and the dealers over there will know about this — and the mileage standards were based on fleet averages. In 1978 cars were required to perform at 18 mpg; in 1979, 19 mpg; in 1980, 20 mpg; in 1985, 27.5 mpg. It's hard to relate that to what we can save in terms of energy, Mr. Speaker, by the very small cost. Basically it comes from reducing the weight of motor vehicles. At lower weights you don't have to drag so much weight around, and you don't have to produce so much energy to do it.

The cumulative savings that will result from targets set up to 1985 could be as high as 20 billion barrels of oil a year, twice the reserves of North Slope oil. All of the problems that we face in bringing oil down the west coast of Canada, in shipping it across the United States or across an oil pipeline route in Northern Canada could have been saved if we had adopted energy conservation standards a very few years ago, which would have obviated the need for that North Slope oil. If cars were much more efficient, then we wouldn't have to go after that expensive North Slope oil; we wouldn't have to go after transporting it down the west coast of British Columbia and threatening our coasts in such a way that we cannot defend from oil spills in these kinds of threats. Those are some of the advantages of energy conservation.

Most of Los Angeles' electricity is generated by a department of the city of Los Angeles, the Department of Water and Power. When the Arab oil embargo took place in 1973 and 1974, the city of Los Angeles ordered their people to cut back on energy in residential areas by 10 percent. With no expense at all the people of Los Angeles cut back by 18 percent. Industrial areas were ordered to cut back by 10 percent; the people cut back by 11 percent. Commercial accounts were ordered to cut back by 20 percent; the actual reduction was 28 percent.

If you can imagine what that percentage is of the total electricity consumed in Los Angeles — it is a fantastic amount. We can make those types of energy savings here on Vancouver Island with the same kind of effort. And it makes economic sense for business to do the same thing. American Can Co. at New Jersey reduced energy consumption by 55 percent with an investment of $73,000. Their annual savings on that investment of $73,000 amounted to $700,000. Parker Hannifin Corp. — manufacturing automotive parts — put $50,000 into energy savings in one year, which produced $1.2 million a year in saved energy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There is no doubt that more energy can be produced by a lower investment in going the energy conservation route. Comparing the jobs created by going through energy conservation to the jobs created on the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project, this government is stupid to carry on with the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project. If they stopped it this very day and pulled their irons out of the fire, we would save more money than if we proceeded with the project. If we invested the money remaining, we would be able to save more energy on Vancouver Island than you would require for a city of 51,000 people or a new pulp and paper complex or 20 percent expansion at every existing pulp and paper complex on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to sit down shortly. But I felt that I should make some comments on one of the good things in the budget since there aren't that many good things to comment on. I wanted to encourage the members opposite by proposing a constructive alternative to the direction that they are presently going. That is no more than they have been asking for over the last few days of debate, and I do hope that they take that constructive criticism to heart.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight on a statement made by the last speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a correction, hon. minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, this is a correction, Mr. Speaker. The member stated that it was in the winter of 1975 that the oil rigs returned to the Peace River.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Instead of the year '75 you want to change it to another year?

[ Page 1461 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. It was not in the year 1975 that the rigs returned to Peace River country, and I have the facts to prove it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This would be entering into the debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not entering into the debate. I'll just give you the facts. Just give me two minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: It is out of order to enter the debate at this point in time. I'm sure the hon. member....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like, then, to have your advice as to how I can set the record straight, when that member has made a misstatement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat, and we will try to give the guidance which we've already given about an hour ago.

In debate, every member takes full responsibility for every statement that he himself makes, whether that statement be accurate or not. Any other member, in his turn in debate, may refute those statements. That's what debate is all about. However, if an error is made — a factual error, not an error in opinion, but an error in fact — then, by convention of this House, a member who perceives that an error has been made stands at the conclusion of the speech and says: "This is the error, and this is the correction." Other than that it is debate, and it is out of order. The point of order which the Minister for Industry and Small Business Development has cited is not a real point of order at all.

We have another point on this side.

MR. SKELLY: I would be willing to table for the minister's perusal the material from which I received the information he is concerned about.

MR. SPEAKER: That is also not a point of order, but if the member wishes to ask leave to table a document, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member made a statement which is not fact, and I'd like to state that it is not fact. I will make a copy of the information that I have, which is from a document prepared to outline the facts. I can't do it now, because I don't want to table the whole document, but I certainly will make a copy so that the record will stand corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A second point of order, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is clearly out of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There were three errors. Do you want me to sit down and stand up on a second point of order')

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the member on a point of order. Clearly state your point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. The last speaker said that the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) were in trouble in their ridings. I want to say that this is not the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Mr. Minister, you are out of order. Please take your seat.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are we to allow this falsehood to continue?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Gosh-all fish-hooks! I don't know how you correct those guys. I get frustrated.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, l realize the hour is growing short. However, before I adjourn I would like to make just a couple of comments.

Firstly, I agree with at least one or two of the comments made by the former speaker, and I would like to comment on those. He said we could do more with less, and I agree that we could do a lot more with a lot less of him.

Secondly, he said we should conserve energy. I think he could have set an example, because for all he mentioned in the debate, he might as well have conserved the energy and not said anything.

Mr. Speaker, he came out against dams. He spoke about the Peace River dam, and about other potential areas for dams. He was very much against dams and dam development. He was also very much against coal development. He is against bringing electrical energy to Vancouver Island. The only thing he didn't mention was nuclear energy. I can understand, because that member must feel a little uncomfortable. I understand he is a member on some committee which supposedly or apparently is doing something with respect to fighting any nuclear energy development, certainly in our country and possibly elsewhere too. But as I said, he made no mention of it, because I think he feels uncomfortable in that. I'm of the opinion — and I'm sure many British Columbians share this with me — that the position of the New Democratic Party was well put forth by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). That member came out in support of nuclear energy in British Columbia, and there's been little, if anything, said by the New Democratic Party about nuclear energy or the development of it in British Columbia during all of this debate. The member for Alberni wants to not provide energy to Vancouver Island; instead he would like the people on Vancouver Island — and possibly he would do this by legislation — to cut down on their consumption of energy. Everybody turn the lights on a little later in the day, turn them off a little earlier at night, use a few more candles, cut back on some industrial development, send back some of those people that have come here during the last five or six years, make sure no people come to Vancouver Island, and sort of let the place die down and become some

[ Page 1462 ]

banana republic. I think perhaps that if the people of British Columbia take note of what was said by that member tonight, they may remember that, when they vote next time in the provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start tomorrow on a very positive note about a tremendous budget, the greatest that's ever been introduced. Therefore I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:54 p.m.