[ Page 1553 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 1553

Petition: Cultus Lake Park Board.

Mr. Ritchie –– 1553

Oral questions.

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

Pharmacare refunds. Mr. Leggatt –– 1553

Administration of justice. Mr. Lauk –– 1554

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

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

Energy policy. Mr. King –– 1555

Ministerial statement

Administration of justice.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1556

Mr. Lauk –– 1561

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1561

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Mr. Mussallem –– 1561

Ms. Brown –– 1564

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1568

Mr. Lauk –– 1573

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1577

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are some 100 members of the Home and School Association of British Columbia, a group of parents who met with me and my officials and with both caucuses today. They are here celebrating PTA Day. I am wearing their badge. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today I note the presence of the hon. Allan McKinnon, Member of Parliament for Victoria. This would be an appropriate time to congratulate Mr. McKinnon on his personal re-election in the federal election of last month and to tell him once again that this government enjoys working with him in federal matters which affect the Victoria area. Would the House make him welcome today.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the second group of students from my constituency sponsored by Crown Zellerbach is here today. They are from Ladysmith Senior Secondary School, with their teachers, Mr. Helmkay and Mr. Foster. I would ask the members to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask members of this House to welcome from my constituency, representing Sir Alexander Mackenzie School PTA, Mr. and Mrs. Baisden, Monica Buchanan, and Olga Deford, and, representing the B.C. Home and School Federation, Elizabeth Schwartz.

Lastly, I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that Olive Wyatt is in our House today. I would like to pay tribute to Olive Wyatt, because she has been one of the most sensitive and caring people regarding child abuse in this province, and has been a great help to our ministry. I would like to ask the House to welcome her.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery, also with the Home and School Federation, is a fellow I used to go to school with. He is my former English 11 teacher, who happens also to be the brother of the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I wish everyone would join me in greeting Mr. Jack Gilmore.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, also seated in the gallery are ten members of the Council of Parent-Participation Pre-Schools. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

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

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT RESPECTING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF LIE DETECTORS

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M 203, An Act Respecting the Commercial Use of Lie Detectors, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Petitions

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

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to present the petition of the Cultus Lake Park Board praying for the passing of an act intituled An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATION

MR. LAUK: A question to the hon. Minister of Education. British Columbia is the only province in Canada that does not provide financial assistance to the Home and School Association. Has the minister decided to reinstitute provincial funding for the B.C. Home and School Association?

HON. MR. SMITH: The policy of the ministry was not to fund the Home and School Association, the B.C. Teachers' Federation or the B.C. School Trustees by giving them general grants, but only to fund those organizations that are directly delivering educational service to children. However, the ladies and gentlemen from that association met with me today and pressed their case, and I will review it. I thank the member for his question.

PHARMACARE REFUNDS

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health. Under the present pharmacare act, all claims for refunds must be filed prior to March 31 this year. That leaves only 12 days for the people of British Columbia if they wish to seek refunds in regard to the pharmacare program. My question is simply this: I haven't seen any notification from the minister's department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong minister.

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

Interjections.

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

[ Page 1554 ]

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

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

Under the present pharmacare act, all claims for refunds must be filed by March 31. There are 12 days left for the people of British Columbia to file those particular claims. My question is: why has the ministry not provided any notice to the public of British Columbia that those refunds should be filed?

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

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

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister now advise the House whether it is the policy of her ministry to discourage B.C. residents from filing these refunds in order to provide a surplus in that particular part of the estimates?

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

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Attorney-General regarding the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the allegations surrounding that person. Has the member for Central Fraser Valley requested a charge be laid so his name can be cleared?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no, but I don't want to leave the matter there. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is, I am informed, a member of the bar of this province, and therefore I would expect that he would know the law which would deal with the way in which charges are laid in this matter.

MR. LAUK: This is not a usual case; it's a case involving an hon. member of this House. Has the Attorney-General decided to release Henry Friesen's affidavit?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Friesen's affidavit, which I've never seen, is, I understand, a part of the material considered by the police in the course of their investigation. It is not the practice, in the public interest, to release material from police investigation files.

MR. LAUK: Public interest includes the interest of the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley; he may wish it to be released. My question is to the Attorney-General. Did Mr. Friesen at any time state that any allegations contained in his affidavit were untrue?

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

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Will the Attorney General take steps..?" the question is out of order. If the question is, "Has the Attorney-General taken steps..?" the question is in order.

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

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

REFIT OF QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. BARBER: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is responsible for B.C. Steamships Co. Can the minister inform the House whether or not B.C. Steamships has awarded a contract for the refit, and for the drawings required for the refit, of the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert?

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

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he has received information from B.C. Steamships as to when, if at all, they propose to award a contract for the redrawing and the refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert.

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

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

MR. BARBER: My question is perfectly in order. It is asking whether or not he has received information….

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

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

Interjections.

[ Page 1555 ]

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

MR. BARBER: Can the minister inform us what decisions have been taken by B.C. Steamships or, perhaps, by B.C. Ferries — for which he is also responsible — for the redesign and the refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert? Will there be a redesign? Will there be a refit? If so, when will it commence and who will do the job?

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

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

MR. BARBER: To the same minister, I also find it difficult to follow that answer, because I've been informed — perhaps wrongly; I stand to be corrected — that in fact the drawings have been prepared. So let me put the question, if I may, another way. Is the minister aware today of any drawings, any plans for refit having been made for the proposed refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert to serve on the Victoria to Seattle run?

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

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

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to the minister. It's an important question in my riding. People wish to know what the refit requirements are. The minister tells us he is aware of drawings. Can he tell us who has prepared those drawings and under what authority?

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

SALE OF ELK RIVER TIMBER CO.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forests. As the minister knows, Elk River Timber Co. Ltd. has owned about 103,000 acres of quality, fee simple land near Campbell River and sells about 35 million board feet of timber on the Vancouver log market — some 3 percent of the total. Did the minister consider purchasing this valuable timberland for the Crown when the company was recently offered for sale?

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

MR. GABELMANN: Will the minister take steps to ensure that the timber previously provided by Elk River continues to be sold on the Vancouver log market now that the company has been purchased by B.C. Forest Products?

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

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry that I phrased that badly. Has the minister taken steps to ensure that the timber provided by Elk River remains sold on the Vancouver log marker now that the company has been sold to BCFP?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

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

MR. GABELMANN: Another question, Mr. Speaker. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that independent sawmillers such as Raven Lumber Ltd. do not suffer from the sale of a traditional supplier to one of the major integrated forest companies?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the sale of cutting rights to Crown timber, as placed in the hands of many companies and individuals.... These people can do with the timber what they wish, so long as it is manufactured in British Columbia. We do not direct timber to any specific location or operator.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, so that I understand the answer, does that mean that if the result of the sale means the closure of the sawmilling operations in Campbell River, the minister has not decided to take any action?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's hypothetical.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me try again. My problem, Mr. Speaker, is trying to suit your very exacting needs to keep these questions in order. My concern is: has the minister spent any time worrying about, thinking about or deciding about the problem that might well exist in Campbell River if the sawmilling operations there do not receive logs that they have received for many years?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Forests and I, as the minister, are always concerned about the supply of timber for all forestry operations in B.C.

ENERGY POLICY

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The minister announced, a little over a month ago, his new B.C. energy policy, which stated basically that major energy projects which have significant social, environmental and economic implications.... Recognizing the need for comprehensive advance evaluation of these energy developments, the government will set up a new integrated review process. He also said that full opportunity would be provided for public input. Does the minister consider the intended hydro project to be constructed by Noranda on the Goldstream River north of Revelstoke to be a project which is outside the context of his energy policy?

[ Page 1556 ]

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

MR. KING: On a supplementary, has the minister had any meetings with respect to the precise dimensions of this power project, or has he given any indication to Noranda that they would be in a position to proceed with construction without the necessity for a public hearing?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member had read all of the energy policy he would have realized there is also a provision in there for smaller hydro projects which are outside the British Columbia Hydro grid and which are not included in Hydro's advance proposals to proceed in another manner than through the normal B.C. Hydro development of that project. The policy statement that has been issued states that projects under 20 megawatts will be approved in the normal manner that is presently in place with the additional input of British Columbia Hydro to ensure that those projects do fit within the context of the energy policy, as is required.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we don't have the major energy project review process in place at this present time, and companies such as Noranda have had applications before the controller of water rights for a number of months — in fact, I understand for two years in the case of Noranda — and the controller of water rights has issued, as I understand it, a water licence, which is not under my ministry, but that's the procedure which has been followed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On March 7, 1980, I indicated to you and to the members of this House that I would be making a review into certain matters touching upon the Deputy Attorney-General which were raised in the House on that day. I rise now to make a statement with respect to those matters which touch upon the conduct of Deputy Attorney General Vogel. They were raised in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television newscast and broadcast over CBUT as part of the CBC evening news at 6 p. m. on March 6, 1980.

The telecast, or the principal portion thereof, was, I am advised, rebroadcast during the 11 p.m. newscast on that same day, and excerpts were shown during the national television news of the CBC. The allegations against the Deputy Attorney-General of British Columbia arose in respect of what were identified in the program as three specific cases. The announcer for the CBC evening news on March 6 was Mr. Bill Good Jr., and he introduced the telecast on that occasion using the words:

"A CBC evening news investigation has turned up evidence that British Columbia's Deputy Attorney-General, Dick Vogel, has used his position to influence the course of justice to help friends and associates. Our own investigation shows how Vogel has interfered in the judicial system. It is a complex story that raises serious questions about justice. With the details he tracked down, here's Chris Bird."

Because of the complex story, Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for the length of this statement. Let me say at the outset, however, that I am fully satisfied that Deputy Attorney-General Richard Vogel is an honest man. In dealing with the results of the review which I have personally undertaken with the assistance of senior officials in the criminal justice division of the Ministry of the Attorney-General, and with the invaluable assistance of Mr. John Hall, a highly reputed lawyer specializing in criminal law, I propose to deal with the allegations and the cases in the order in which they were presented on the telecast.

Case No. 1: This case arose out of charges laid against one Mickey Moran, who is described in the telecast as "a well-known Kootenays lawyer who ran as a Socred candidate in 1956." The reporter also points out that "he (Moran) and Dick Vogel had been friends since the early sixties, when Vogel himself was a Kootenays lawyer." As indicated in the telecast, Mr. Moran was involved in a motor vehicle accident at Christina Lake on March 14, 1978, as a consequence of which Mr. Moran was, on March 18, 1978, charged with impaired driving and a failure to submit to a breathalyser test. He was, on April 11, 1978, charged with dangerous driving arising from the same incident.

In the course of my review I interviewed Mr. Brian Nattrass, who was then Crown counsel of Nelson, B.C.; Mr. Brian Weddell, the regional Crown counsel for the Kootenay region; Mr. Robert Moffat, Crown counsel at Vernon; Mr. Thomas C. Smith, who was then senior Crown counsel at Nelson; and Mr. Nils Jensen, presently Crown counsel at Nelson, B.C.

The allegation against the Deputy Attorney-General is contained in the statement by the CBC reporter Chris Bird, namely: "We've learned that a senior prosecutor has complained to colleagues that Vogel phoned a local prosecutor and suggested he lay an additional dangerous driving charge because Moran would plead guilty to that." From my interview with Mr. Nattrass it is evident that the charges of impaired driving and refusal to submit to a breathalyser test in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Code of Canada were laid on March 18, 1978 by the RCMP. Mr. Nattrass laid the additional charge of dangerous driving.

Mr. Nattrass has informed me that at no time did he have any communication with or received any instructions from Deputy Attorney-General Vogel with respect to the laying of any charge. He further informs me that the decision to lay the dangerous driving charge was made by him and confirmed with his regional Crown counsel, Brian Weddell. I am further informed by Mr. Nattrass that his only communication with Mr. Vogel during the time he was Crown counsel at Nelson occurred on or about February 2, 1978, one month and 12 days before the incident in which Mr. Moran was involved, during the course of a routine visit of the Deputy Attorney-General to Crown counsel offices at Nelson, B.C.

After the laying of these charges, the file on this matter was brought to the attention of Thomas C. Smith, then senior Crown counsel at Nelson. Mr. Smith, being aware of the active involvement of Mr. Moran as counsel in criminal matters in the Nelson-Castlegar area, communicated with regional Crown counsel Brian Weddell and recommended to him that the conduct of these charges be placed in the hands of Crown counsel from outside the region. To this request Mr. Weddell acceded in accordance with his practice when dealing with charges against persons whose occupations bring them into close relationship with the courts. He accordingly directed that this case be conducted by Mr. Robert Moffat, who was then senior Crown counsel at Vernon, B.C.

I interviewed Mr. Moffat and was advised by him that from the time the conduct of these matters was placed in his hands, he had no communication with or instructions from

[ Page 1557 ]

the Deputy Attorney-General or any other person in the Ministry of the Attorney-General. All decisions that were made with regard to the disposition of the several charges against Mr. Moran were made by Mr. Moffat up to and including the appearance before His Honour, Judge Goulet, chief judge of the provincial court at Grand Forks, on February 9, 1979. On that occasion counsel for Mr. Moran entered a plea of guilty and following submissions from counsel Chief Judge Goulet gave judgment, granting an absolute discharge for Moran on the charge of dangerous driving.

Chris Bird, the CBC reporter, in the course of the telecast stated: "On the morning the Moran case was finally heard, the prosecution dropped the original two charges, which carried mandatory penalties." I'm advised by Mr. Moffat that such a statement is technically correct, but that he decided in June 1978 that the evidence available for the Crown would not support the impaired driving charge and he so advised Mr. Moran at that time, Mr. Moran then not being represented by counsel.

Mr. Moffat further advises me that he decided to stay the charge of refusing to submit to a breathalyser test upon the completion of his interview of the witnesses for the Crown on February 8, 1979. He informed counsel for Mr. Moran of that decision on the evening of that day.

In response to the question posed by me to Mr. Moffat concerning his conduct of these charges against Mr. Moran, Mr. Moffat responded: "I have never spoken to Mr. Vogel to my knowledge in my life, and I spoke to nobody else in Victoria about the matter, either before I was appointed by Weddell or during the time that I was on the case or after the case."

Following the disposition of the charge against Mr. Moran by Chief Judge Goulet and pending the receipt of a transcript of the proceedings, Mr. Moffat, on the instructions of Regional Crown Counsel Brian Weddell, requested Crown Counsel Jensen, who was then at Nelson, to file a notice of appeal against the sentence. Upon receipt by Mr. Moffat of a transcript of the proceedings, he forwarded it to Regional Crown Counsel Brian Weddell. I'm informed by Regional Crown Counsel Weddell that upon his review of the transcript of the proceedings he concluded that the Crown could not succeed on an appeal against sentence. He sent a copy of the transcript of the proceedings to Assistant Deputy Attorney-General Neil McDiarmid, who in a telephone conversation with Weddell, confirmed that opinion. As a consequence the Crown abandoned its appeal.

In the course of the telecast, the interview by Chris Bird of Mr. Joe Lucas, who apparently is the chairman of the local justice council, elicited from Mr. Lucas the response that "special treatment was given." According to the statement by Mr. Lucas, he reached that conclusion because the matter was heard by Chief Judge Goulet on other than a normal court day, by a judge who was "brought in to listen to the case," and "a special prosecutor was brought in." In this regard, I have already indicated that the normal practice of Regional Crown Counsel Weddell in such instances was to assign a prosecutor from outside the region. Inquiries which I have made of the associate chief judge of the provincial court indicate that Chief Judge Goulet, who is presently absent from the province, heard this case at the request of the administrative judge for the region. The date for the hearing of the matter was fixed by Chief Judge Goulet, based upon his availability to attend at Grand Forks for that purpose, and was set without consideration to what might or might not have been a normal court day. I am further advised that counsel for the defence attempted to obtain an adjournment of the case from February 9, 1979, but that Chief Judge Goulet refused to grant an adjournment.

With respect to the involvement of Crown Counsel Nils Jensen, my interview with him discloses that his only part in this matter consisted of the filing of the notice of appeal and the abandonment thereof on the instructions of Regional Crown Counsel Weddell.

Based upon my interviews with Regional Crown Counsel Weddell, it is clear that, contrary to the report of Chris Bird, in the course of the telecast, Brian Weddell had no complaint about Deputy Attorney-General Vogel's interference in the Moran case, and that such denial was made directly to Mr. Bird by Mr. Weddell in the course of an interview which was not shown as part of the telecast.

My review of this case discloses no basis for the allegation made by Mr. Bird against the Deputy Attorney-General, with respect to the charges laid against Mr. Moran, and clearly no basis for any suggestion that Mr. Vogel attempted to "influence the course of justice to help friends and associates," or "interfered in the judicial system."

Case number two pertains to a charge against Andrew Rigg of operating a motor vehicle, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion thereof in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was a 17-year-old boy, the son of Dr. Michael Rigg. Andrew Rigg was apprehended by the Vancouver city police in respect of this matter on October 14, 1977, following which he submitted to a breath analysis. The police report indicates that the analysis showed a .12 reading.

The progress of this case was set out in a letter from R. Bruce Donald, senior prosecutor, at 222 Main Street, Vancouver, B.C., addressed to then Attorney-General Gardom, on November 15, 1978. A copy of this letter was featured in the CBC telecast. From Mr. Donald's letter it is established that Mr. John McAlpine acted for the accused, and he requested the prosecutor to divert the case. This was refused by Mr. Donald. Subsequently, Mr. Vogel, following a communication from Mr. McAlpine, discussed the diversion of the case with Mr. Donald, who maintained the view that diversion should not be used in this instance. The case was not diverted. It went forward to trial before His Honour Judge Bewley, following which the charge was dismissed.

Crown Counsel Donald took the position that the case was dismissed without proper grounds, and referred the matter to regional Crown counsel in Vancouver for consideration of an appeal. Normal procedures were followed in this instance, and an appeal was launched. Following the launching of the appeal, Mr. John McAlpine approached Crown Counsel Donald and suggested that the appeal should be stopped. This was refused. Following this refusal, Mr. McAlpine communicated with Mr. Vogel, and the case was subsequently discussed by Mr. Donald with Mr. Vogel and Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid. Following that discussion, Mr. McDiarmid and Mr. Donald both expressed the view that the appeal should proceed, but Mr. Vogel remained of the view that it should not proceed. The appeal was set for May 19, 1978, and the matter was a subject of further discussions between Mr. Vogel and Mr. McAlpine, and later between Mr. Vogel and Regional Crown Counsel Filmer. Mr. Vogel then gave Filmer written instruction that the appeal was not to be proceeded with, and the appeal was abandoned.

[ Page 1558 ]

In the CBC telecast it is inferred that Mr. Vogel involved himself in this case because of his friendship with Dr. Michael Rigg and his family. My inquiries into this matter do not disclose such a close personal relationship. The statement that Mr. Vogel and Dr. Rigg are "social friends" is not supportable. I interviewed Dr. Rigg and was advised that he first met Mr. Vogel approximately 10 years ago when he made a house call at Mr. Vogel's home for the purpose of attending professionally upon Mr. Vogel's nephew. Dr. Rigg is not the physician for Mr. Vogel and his family, but Dr. Rigg's partner is the physician for one of Mr. Vogel's brothers. Dr. Rigg attended the call, as his partner was not at that time on duty.

Dr. Rigg also told me that Mr. Vogel had visited the Rigg house only on one occasion, to obtain some papers associated with St. George's School Foundation, of which Dr. Rigg and Mr. Vogel were trustees. Apparently, over four years of holding the position of trustee, Dr. Rigg had met Mr. Vogel on only two occasions.

The telecast also claimed that Mrs. Rigg and Mrs. Vogel "played tennis together." This is denied by Mrs. Rigg, and Mrs. Vogel advises that she does not play tennis and does not know Mrs. Rigg.

Dr. Rigg does know Mrs. Vogel — to give her her proper title, it is Dr. Vogel, she being a public health physician — but there is no basis for concluding that the relationship between Dr. and Mrs. Rigg and Mr. and Dr. Vogel is one which can be characterized as a friendship.

My review into this matter has failed to disclose any suggestion that there was any communication between Dr. Rigg and Mr. Vogel with respect to the conduct of this case.

Mr. Donald, being extremely upset with respect to the handling of the Rigg appeal, raised his concerns with Mr. Vogel on June 19, 1978, and subsequently met with him to discuss the matter in September of that year. This discussion failed to resolve the concerns of Mr. Donald and, as a consequence, he wrote to Attorney-General Gardom on November 15, 1978. On receipt of Mr. Donald's letter, Mr. Gardom referred the matter to Assistant Deputy Attorney General McDiarmid, who convened a meeting for the purpose of discussing the matters raised by Mr. Donald. The meeting was held in Vancouver on December 2, 1978, and was attended by McDiarmid, Vogel, Regional Crown Counsel Filmer and Mr. Donald. At that meeting the case of Andrew Rigg was discussed, and the matters alleging to John Farris, to which I will refer in a moment. The purpose and results of that meeting were set out by Mr. Donald in a letter to Attorney-General Gardom dated December 5, 1978, a copy of which I propose to table at the conclusion of this statement.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the CBC telecast made very much of a personal and confidential letter from Mr. Donald to the Attorney-General, dated November 15, 1978. We believe we know the source of that letter. I should say that some people may consider it glamorous to obtain personal communications and to make them available to others; I do not share that point of view.

It is unfortunate perhaps that the CBC couldn't have obtained a copy of the letter which I am about to read: "Private and confidential." It's addressed to the Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Q.C., Attorney-General, on December 5, 1978.

"Dear Sir:

"Re: Deputy Attorney-General Richard H. Vogel

"I sent you a letter, dated November 15, 1978, asking for an investigation into the actions taken by Mr. Vogel in connection with the case of Regina v. Andrew Michael Rigg, and also into certain actions taken by the Deputy Attorney-General in connection with a case that involved John Farris.

"On the evening of November 21,1978, you advised me that you had asked Neil McDiarmid to look into these matters, and you asked me to give him my cooperation. At Mr. McDiarmid's request, I met with Mr. Vogel, Mr. Filmer and Mr. McDiarmid at Mr. Filmer's office at Pacific Centre on Saturday, December 2, 1978. There was a frank discussion about the operation of the ministry as it related to the four of us in that room.

"Mr. Vogel indicated that he had made an error in judgment in the handling of the Rigg case, possibly due in part to the fact that the Rigg case came up not too long after he had been appointed Deputy Attorney-General. It appears that, having taken the view as early as 1977 that the prosecution should not proceed, he held this view until the appeal was finally stopped in May of 1978.

"Mr. Vogel advises that if the Rigg case came up today he would not have interfered, but would have let the case run its course. I take this as an assurance that the Rigg case was a one-time error in judgment, and that this type of action on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General will not occur again. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Rigg matter is at an end, and that my complaint in connection with the Rigg case has been satisfactorily answered.

"With regard to the matter involving John Farris, Mr. McDiarmid is to arrange a meeting to involve Chief Winterton, Deputy Chief Dixon, Superintendent Herdman, Filmer, McDiarmid and myself. On the basis of what Mr. Vogel told Mr. Filmer, McDiarmid and myself on December 2, 1978, I expect that the matters raised in connection with Farris will be resolved in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Vogel advises that when the suggestion was put forward by the police that John Farris would be a witness, he, Vogel, on determining the evidence for which the police suggested that Farris should be called, gave a lawyer's opinion that Farris should not be a witness in the case. The ensuing discussion left the impression in the minds of the police that Mr. Vogel was prepared to interfere with the role of Crown counsel handling the case. Mr. Vogel states that it was not his intention to leave this impression. I am hopeful that the issues in connection with Mr. Farris will be resolved at the meeting, referred to above, with the police. I will report to you further after that meeting."

At this juncture I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Deputy Attorney-General, whoever he may be, is, in instances such as those disclosed in the case of Andrew Rigg, clothed with the authority to make such a decision and give direction to abandon an appeal. It is a matter for his judgment, in any case where he concludes that there is no useful purpose to be achieved by carrying on the appeal. It would be otherwise if his decision were based on improper motives, but, as a result of my review of this matter, I cannot find that his actions were motivated or that he was influenced by improper considerations. Quite to the contrary, my review satisfies me that his decision was based on proper considerations.

[ Page 1559 ]

The accused had stood trial on a summary conviction offence and been acquitted by a judge who had found a reasonable doubt, which, in accordance with the law, must be resolved in favour of the defendant. There was not, in this case, any fundamental legal issue or principle of law requiring clarification or reconsideration by an appellate court. The incident giving rise to the charge had not resulted from a motor vehicle accident or other moving offence. The accused was fully cooperative with the police authorities, clearly recognized the seriousness of his conduct and was contrite.

Taking all these elements into consideration, it cannot be maintained that the interests of justice were not properly served in this case. After all, justice is what the system is all about. The citizen who finds himself involved in matters such as this is entitled to have matters directly affecting him decided upon the factors of his case, not upon the desire of the Crown to remedy what it considers to be a weakness in the system.

Case three. In this case, which the CBC reporter referred to as the Wendy King–Farris case, references are made to information coming to the attention of senior prosecutor Bruce Donald that Deputy Attorney-General Vogel had advised officers of the Vancouver City Police Department that he would prevent Mr. Farris from being called as a witness in a case in respect of which charges had not then been laid.

The full details of the information coming to the attention of Mr. Donald were contained in his letter of November 15, 1978, addressed to Attorney-General Gardom. This letter, to which I referred a moment ago, has already been published in daily newspapers circulating in British Columbia, with the exception of two sentences which were deleted by reason of the privacy provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. I propose, at the conclusion of this statement, to table a copy of that letter with the same two sentences expunged for the same reason.

The subject matter of this case, and Mr. Donald's concerns relating to the information which had been passed to him, were the subject of a discussion at a meeting held in Vancouver attended by: Deputy Attorney-General Vogel, Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid, Regional Crown Counsel Filmer, Senior Prosecutor Donald, Chief Constable Donald Winterton, Deputy Chief Dixon and Superintendent Herdman — the last three persons being senior officers in the Vancouver City Police Department. Following that meeting Mr. Donald again wrote to Attorney-General Gardom, under date of December 21, 1978, and I propose to table a copy of that letter at the conclusion of this statement.

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

"Private and Confidential

"Re: Deputy Attorney-General Richard H. Vogel

"Further to my letters of November 15, 1978, and December 5, 1978, concerning the Rigg case and the case which involves John Farris, I am pleased to advise that on December 12, 1978, a meeting was held concerning the problem which I raised in connection with the case involving John Farris. Mr. Vogel, Mr. McDiarmid, Mr. Filmer and I attended from our ministry, and Chief Constable Winterton, Deputy Chief Dixon and Superintendent Herdman attended from the Vancouver police department. "I am now satisfied that it is now understood by all concerned that Mr. Vogel was giving his lawyer's opinion, based on the information that had been given to him by Superintendent Herdman, when he indicated he would prevent the calling of John Farris as a witness in the Wendy King case.

"The timing of Mr. Vogel's remarks was probably unfortunate in that the Crown counsel, who reviewed all of the evidence in connection with the Wendy King case, came to the conclusion several days after Mr. Vogel had made his remarks that Farris should not be called as a witness since there was no indication that Mr. Farris would advance the Crown's case in any way.

"The Crown counsel, who reviewed all of the evidence, was never contacted by Mr. Vogel, and he was not informed of Mr. Vogel's remarks about not calling John Farris as a witness until after he had made his own determination as to the value of calling John Farris as a witness.

"The police are now fully informed of the sequence of events and do not, I believe, think there was or will be any interference by the Deputy Attorney General in connection with the prosecution of the Wendy King case. While there may still be some questions in the minds of some police in the ranks as to what happened with respect to whether or not John Farris should be called as a witness in the Wendy King case — since some are of the view that he should be called as a witness, even though it is not the police role to decide who will and will not be witnesses — I am completely satisfied, as a result of the December 12, 1978, meeting that as far as I am concerned, the matter that I raised with you in my letter of November 15, 1978, with respect to John Farris, is satisfactorily closed.

"Yours very truly, R. Bruce Donald."

Following my interview with Chief Winterton and Superintendent Herdman in the past week — the latter of whom was present at the meeting of November 1, 1978, referred to in Donald's letter of November 15 — I was informed by Superintendent Herdman that he believed Mr. Vogel to be an honourable man, and that in this matter, "he had no intention to interfere with the administration of justice." My review into this matter has disclosed that in the preparation of the Crown case against Wendy King, Mr. Farris was served with a subpoena. Therefore there was, in fact, no interference by Deputy Attorney-General Vogel in the selection and summonsing of witnesses for the Crown in that case.

With reference to Mr. Donald's letter of November 15, 1978, and the action taken by the Hon. Garde Gardom with respect thereto, I will also table a memorandum from Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid dated February 26, 1979. Mr. Speaker, it's very brief. It's addressed to Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Attorney-General, and is marked "private and confidential." He states: "I have had an opportunity of reading all the correspondence attached hereto, particularly Mr. Donald's letters of December 5 and December 21. I can assure you that those letters accurately reflect the conversations held on both occasions. I can also add in connection with those matters, which you delegated to me to investigate, that they have been satisfactorily completed, and the parties involved satisfied with the results."

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

[ Page 1560 ]

March 6, 1980, constitute a direct but unwarranted attack upon the integrity of Deputy Attorney-General Vogel and upon the professional skills, the sense of responsibility, the dedication and the enthusiasm which he has brought to the discharge of the functions of his office. Indirectly, those same allegations, inferences and innuendos constitute a similar attack upon the integrity, performance and responsibility of former Crown Counsel Brian Nattress, Regional Crown Counsel Brian Weddell, Crown Counsel Robert Moffat, and those members of the judiciary and other senior officials of the Ministry of the Attorney-General who, in the performance of their duties, have been involved in these cases. As serious as these matters are for the persons directly and indirectly involved, and I in no way diminish the significance of this, there is, in my view, a much more serious consequence flowing from this news broadcast — namely, the apprehension which may be created in the minds of those who saw that telecast, read the material contained therein or heard the matter second-hand concerning the credibility of the criminal justice system and the standard of performance of those who are charged with its administration.

Mr. Speaker, any report which leads to a diminution of respect for the law or the administration of the law and which does not accurately and fairly deal with the subject can neither be accepted nor condoned. I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that being made aware of the impending broadcast by the CBC but being unaware of its contents, I twice requested the opportunity of viewing the material in advance of the broadcasts. This request was not made for the purpose of preventing the CBC from broadcasting any material which it considered proper, but rather to ensure that matters touching upon the justice system were accurate. Both of these requests were denied.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I must advise you that on February 5, 1980, I received a telephone call from Chief Donald Winterton of the Vancouver police department during which he advised me that Mr. Chris Bird of the CBC had that day communicated with him expressing the desire to have Chief Winterton view a script, which Chief Winterton understood related to Deputy Attorney-General Vogel. I was informed by Chief Winterton that he declined the request, but in so doing advised Mr. Bird that he would be obliged to inform me of the request.

During the course of debate in this House on Friday, March 7, 1980, the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) made reference to this conversation. Because of the nature of those comments, I obtained a report on the matter from Chief Winterton I will read. It is dated March 11, 1980. It is strictly confidential, but I have obtained the consent, Mr. Speaker, of Chief Winterton to produce this statement today, as I have with the other confidential letters which I've read to this House.

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

"At approximately 11:30 a.m., Superintendent Tom Herdman advised me that he had received a telephone call from Chris Bird of the CBC, requesting an interview regarding the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Vogel. Superintendent Herdman spoke to me and advised me that in his view such an interview would be totally improper. I concurred with Superintendent Herdman and suggested to him that he should have Mr. Bird phone me, Winterton.

"At approximately 12:07 Chris Bird phoned me. Present in my office at the time I received the call was Superintendent Herdman. Mr. Bird advised me that he would like to meet with me and discuss a very confidential matter. I asked Mr. Bird the nature of the confidential matter and he indicated that he would rather discuss it with me directly. I advised him that I had spoken to Superintendent Herdman, and if the matter was with respect to the Deputy Attorney General Dick Vogel, I did not wish to discuss the matter with him. I pointed out that any such conversation, in my view, would be quite improper. I further pointed out to Mr. Bird that if he was in possession of any information of wrongdoing by Mr. Vogel, then he, Bird, should present this information directly to the Attorney-General.

"Mr. Bird advised me that he was not seeking official comment, that he was seeking some sort of guidance. He indicated that he wanted me to view a script and wished me to comment, if I would. I once again advised Mr. Bird that this would be totally inappropriate for me, and that I could not comply with his request.

"I also advised Mr. Bird that by bringing this matter to my attention, he placed me in the position where I was morally obliged to report our conversation directly to the Attorney-General. Mr. Bird said that was fine, because the Attorney-General would know soon, anyway. I further advised that I would not discuss the matter with the Deputy Attorney-General, but would deal directly with the Attorney-General.

"At approximately 1:30 p.m." — on this same day, Mr. Speaker — "as a result of my message, the Attorney-General, Mr. Allan Williams, called me at my office. I advised the minister of the contact of Superintendent Herdman and myself by Mr. Bird and of the position that I had taken with respect to this request. l further pointed out to the Attorney-General that I did not know what Mr. Bird wished to discuss with me, but that I suspected it was the Wendy King case. The Attorney-General concurred with the position I had taken and advised that he would be quite prepared to see Mr. Bird if he had any allegations of wrongdoing by the Deputy Attorney-General. The minister also advised me that he was uncertain as to whether or not he would inform Mr. Vogel of the discussion. He indicated that at the moment he felt he would not. I advised Mr. Williams that I would contact Mr. Bird and advise him of our conversation.

"At approximately 2 p.m. on that same day, I contacted Mr. Bird by telephone and advised him that I had spoken with the Attorney-General. I advised Mr. Bird that the Attorney-General's position was that if he, Bird, had information with respect to wrongdoing by the Deputy Attorney-General, he should present this information to the Attorney General. I further advised Mr. Bird that if he had any information with respect to improper investigation or wrongdoing by the Vancouver police department, I would be most pleased to meet with him and discuss this aspect. Mr. Bird assured me that he had no concern with respect to impropriety by the Vancouver police department."

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

[ Page 1561 ]

I wish you to know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bird did not accept the advice of Chief Winterton and did not communicate to me any information in his possession with respect to Deputy Attorney-General Vogel.

In view of all these matters and the seriousness which I have ascribed to them, I wish to advise this House that I will provide a copy of this statement to the federal minister having responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, which is responsible under the laws of Canada for granting licences to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and others.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have today terminated the leave of absence which I extended to Deputy Attorney-General Vogel on March 7, 1980, and have requested him to resume the powers and duties of his office.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a copy of the private and confidential letter from Donald to Gardom, November 15, with two sentences expunged, as I pointed out; the letters from Donald to Gardom, December 5 and December 28, 1978; the memorandum from Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid, dated February 26, 1979, also addressed to the Hon. Garde B. Gardom, Attorney-General; and, finally, the report, strictly confidential, from Chief D.L. Winterton of Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Since the hon. the minister has referred to these verbatim, and leave would not be required, it would be expected that they would be filed.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled correspondence.

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the official opposition, first of all I would like to thank the Attorney-General for giving a thorough report and for taking the necessary time to conduct the investigation — or the review, as he has put it — and reporting quickly to the Legislature on these very serious allegations.

Because of the complexity of the review that the Attorney-General has reported to the House, the opposition takes the view that we would like to go over the Attorney-General's statement very carefully, together with the documents tabled in the House, some of which we have not seen. We then will very likely be making a further statement on the question.

We wish to leave this afternoon's discussion of the subject with the clear understanding that the opposition is of the view that the administration of justice in this province must be totally without cloud or suspicion; it must be totally in the view of the public — equality before the law — and any such serious allegations raised by the press must be completely and openly investigated.

Although we appreciate the Attorney-General's efforts, we hasten to point out that he is acting as an elected official and a Crown minister in a very sensitive area in the administration of justice. We do not have a public view of all of the witnesses interviewed, the full statements that were given, whether they were under oath, whether other witnesses involved in these matters were interviewed, and there are many other unanswered questions. In no way do we wish to suggest that the Attorney-General was not thorough, but it is our view that an open and complete investigation into such matters must be undertaken for the very reason that the Attorney General raised in his statement: the public confidence in the administration of justice must be completely above any suggestion of partisan politics or of interference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing orders provide only for a statement and a reply, unless members are seeking the floor in another matter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the opposition has responded to the Attorney-General, so I feel the obligation to respond as the government to the statement by the Attorney-General, accentuating the unique position of the justice system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Mr. Premier, I'm not aware of any vehicle by which I can provide this opportunity, but I will review the matter immediately and see whether or not it is possible. If it is, I will advise the House momentarily. May we have a short recess?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ask leave!

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

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would point out the unique position the Attorney-General is in in any government. Therefore I'm responding for the government on the statement given by the Attorney-General today — that very complete statement.

I say, on behalf of the government, that we accept the statement of the hon. Attorney-General as an honourable member of this House, and we accept his statement without question because of our considerable admiration for his reputation as a member and his reputation as a counsel before becoming a member. Mr. Speaker, we accept it because in this instance and in others the system of justice must be clearly protected and the public must have confidence.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Although my statement seems to bore the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), this is an area in which partisan politics should not be played in dealing with a public servant and the report of an hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put those remarks on the record, because we recognize the very difficult role the Attorney-General has had in conducting this review.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is one of the fine moments in this House when we hear one of the members of the ministry exonerating and upholding a high public official.

[ Page 1562 ]

In continuing with the debate that I adjourned last night, it almost seems an anti-climax to say very much as the member for Dewdney, but at the same time the process of parliament must continue. I must go on with my debate and reply in support of the budget.

I would like first to bring to your attention the words of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he referred to the myth of the provincial debt. That member shouldn't use the word "myth," because he should have remembered the words of his leader when he was Leader of the Opposition in the previous government. He should have remembered the words of that leader, who said that this government — our Social Credit government — carried two sets of books. Some of you here will remember that. We had two sets of books: one for the auditor and one for the internal workings of government.

Now what happened is that when they became government in 1972, he said: "I'll answer the question. I've found out that there are not two sets of books. The books are correct and the books are there — not only that, but I've found the treasury is full of money like they said also." That's what the leader said. If they would only have remembered those words! Yet with all that money, with all that consideration, with all these things, they said they continued a government, but they continued a government on the socialist way. They referred to the myth of debts. There is no myth to $200 million ICBC and ferry debts. There is no myth to a $100 million overrun. These in themselves are not the issue. The issues are errors and the inability of socialists to run a business.

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind the book.

By 1973, the impetus of the previous government was continuing, and by 1974, as my chart showed yesterday, they are on the downhill slide.

MR. COCKE: Show us the chart again.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll show you the chart again. There it is. You will see the impetus of the previous government. This is when the socialists took over and the impetus continued.

They said: "Yes, there is a lot of money in the treasury. Sure, spend it, boys. Let's get going." Saturday night rich and Monday morning poor. And suddenly they hit the slide when they went into the basement. The gross provincial product — right there — was 1.3 percent in the basement. Further into debt.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: The China syndrome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I referred to the China syndrome yesterday, because we have our member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) who said: "Who was in favour of nuclear power?" So I said he would understand what this means — down in the basement, the China syndrome.

The main attack of the opposition, if there is an attack, said that there is no provision for jobs. How could it be possible to make a statement like that? You have just seen a short while ago $200 million set aside by this government for building new homes, which was oversubscribed almost in two days. This created jobs. It put the impetus into the building industry and created hundreds of jobs and is continuing to do so.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I will read today from the Vancouver Province — this morning's lead report. It said: "Ironically, housing starts were up 208 percent in metro Vancouver in February to 1,529 from 496 in February of 1979, and up 44 percent in Victoria to 123 from 88." That was a result of this infusion of $200 million into the economy. It said further: "But this construction is way behind the demand for housing of all types, a demand that will continue for some years, as more people flock to the area as the economy continues to grow." That's British Columbia.

The outlook for British Columbia is bright. But it is a difficult problem we have in British Columbia, because we've got to jump a 30 percent barrier every time we want to do any business in the United States; we've got to do the same thing to sell our products there. Our only hope is in trading with the Pacific Rim.

Ontario and Quebec have never paid their dues in Confederation. They've taken everything from Canada and given nothing back, and that's been exceedingly well shown in the way the government was treated in the last federal election. I have an idea that the federal government would like to be fair with the four western provinces — and this is not government policy, by any means, I can assure you. But I would like to see a free-trade area between the four western provinces so we could do our business north and south; that's what I would like to see. Let Ontario do its own business with itself if it wants to. Let them find out what it feels like to have only themselves for customers for a change. Let Quebec find out the same thing.

Let the maritime provinces and the four western provinces be free to trade over the border. That's the answer. Let these other people in central Canada find out what it is to be under the pressure of not being able to trade. We can't ship our goods to Ontario, because the freight rates are two and a half times greater than for them shipping goods out here. It's a well-known fact that the west has not been properly treated by the federal government. I'm glad our ministers are having conferences on that matter. It's only because we're so rich in many ways, especially in resources, that we're able to maintain our standard of living. The west is coming into its own. It's time the east took a stand and realized that we're here, and did not try to hold back forever on the purse-strings of Canada.

I would like to read from the Minister of Finance's "Medium-Term Economic Outlook and Fiscal Analysis," in which he said: "British Columbia is highly dependent upon foreign trade, and could not escape these forces in the international economy. Moreover, as a province in a federal system, British Columbia can have very little influence on the underlying structure of inflation and high interest rates." Therein lies the problem. Our only hope is to remove these barriers and give us a greater trading area north and south, the way the Lord made the continent. Every time we want to trade with the rest of Canada we've got to cross the Rocky Mountains. The continent wasn't made that way; it was made north and south. Why do we have to cross the mountains

[ Page 1563 ]

every time we want to buy a TV? Why do we have to cross the mountains if we want to do business? Why? Now it can be done. The automobile industry has the auto trade pact; there is no duty on automobiles. Automobiles in Canada and the United States are the same price except for the difference in the dollar and the difference in taxes; they're the same price on both sides of the border. Why can't this be in all industries? Why? It's because central Canada will not release their stranglehold on the economy. They want to build it all there. What does that do to central Canada? It makes them lazy. Nothing will create a lazy manufacturing concern more than to give them a 22 percent to 30 percent tariff just for their benefit. And we've got to cross that tariff every time we want to do business. I think that is grossly unfair.

Furthermore, I wish to continue reading the statement from the hon. Minister of Finance: "Notwithstanding the vulnerability of British Columbia to the sluggish conditions in the international economy since 1975, the province has fared relatively well." That's because we have good management; that's the reason we have fared well. We had the same problems during the socialist regime of 1972-75. How did we fare? We landed in the basement, as the chart shows. British Columbia will not succeed unless it is under good management, with a proper private enterprise government and economy. I hope for the sake of the people, for our families and for the sake of British Columbia that the socialists never again take over this province's business and economy, because when they do, we'll hit the skids again. They had the opportunity with the coffers full, with everything "go." They descended into the basement within three years when every major union was on strike, and they had to call this parliament back to put people back to work. The British Columbia Railway was practically inoperative for three years. What happened when we got back into government? For the first time the railway ran on time. For the first time in those three years it became a reliable carrier of goods.

I hope the socialist era in British Columbia is finished; it should be finished. They're not bad people. Don't misunderstand me — they're all good friends, but they're impossible business people. They're great theorists, great idea people, but they couldn't put the nuts and bolts together. That's the problem. That has been proven on many occasions, and it can't be proven more than on my chart I have here, between the years 1972 and 1975, conclusive proof that it is important and imperative that if British Columbia and Canada are to succeed, socialism must be put behind us. There's a great place for them in opposition. I approve of that.

What I would like to say is that the main thrust of what our hon. friends are saying to us is that our budget did not create jobs. Well now, that's a very trite thing to say. How wrong can it be? I'm not going to read this, but if you were to read the 1980 budget highlights — they're in every budget book, on both sides — it will tell you that almost every item is for the creation of jobs. British Columbia is being raised to a new plateau where it will become more viable and stronger. In the next budget you'll see the change in taxation, because from then on the impetus of our present budget will keep going up and we'll be able to have funds coming in to reduce taxation. But we must reach a new plateau. We can't stand still — not this government, not this policy.

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

Now I would like to say a thing or two about my own constituency of Dewdney. Here is something which portrays what is happening to British Columbia. In the city of Mission, a town in the Fraser Valley 45 miles east of Vancouver, a lovely place, a new factory is being built by Genstar, employing over 200 people, showing the confidence of the manufacturer — of industry — to go out there, out beyond Vancouver, and put a multimillion dollar factory in the city of Mission.

In Coquitlam, just west of my constituency, 2,000 acres were put aside for industry. Within two years, when the land was filled, every bit of it has been taken up. Industry is moving into British Columbia from all over the world. This has come because we have power, markets and management, because business has confidence in the Social Credit government.

In the municipality of Maple Ridge we have another 375-acre park that is just being built today. I suggest that within two years that will be full of industry because of the help of our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). With the assistance of government ministries, we are able to find people that want to locate outside the city of Vancouver and give jobs where the people live, so people will not have to travel back and forth to the city for all their work. They will have a place in the towns where they live.

It's happening in Langley; it's happening in Surrey. There's a very great example in Surrey. The Fraser Valley is building up, as is the area east and north of Hope. Everywhere industry is taking hold, and that's because of this government and this budget, because of the confidence of the public in the administration of their business.

I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), especially, for his help to me in almost every instance. He hasn't announced it quite yet, but I understand he's going to announce the finishing of a four-lane highway that was started some years ago. I've been told he's almost ready to say it, but not quite, so I'll wait a day or two. I want to thank him for the completion.... During the time I was previously an MLA, a bridge was built in Mission. It crossed the river in Mission — a fine bridge, it had beautiful approaches. But then the socialists took over again. What do you think happened? The approaches were never finished. They stopped dead. We had a beautiful bridge, and no approaches.

I remember at the opening of the bridge how we begged. I was asked to speak. I was no longer the member; I was sitting in the audience. I said that I hoped that the hon. Premier of that day would be so kind as to complete this bridge for the people of Dewdney, because the bridge was built but needed the approaches. All he did was shake his head — no way. And did he mean it? He certainly did. He never touched a thing. Nothing. Then we got back in office. Yes, it took us three years to get organized, but now the southern approach is finished and the northern approach is being done. That's the way this government works — industry, bridges and roads.

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I'm glad they're asking, and I hope they will get it.

There is one thing about that minister. He doesn't care whose riding it is in. He deals with the people of British

[ Page 1564 ]

Columbia. I've noticed that — with the people of British Columbia, not in whose riding it is. No way. And that's the way it should be. That's the way this government is: fairness to all and favour to none. It's a very simple motive, but it's a fact.

For these things, and for the help I'm getting from all ministries.... But I do need more. We need more in Dewdney. Suddenly the valley has become visible to the government. It has not been for many years. I just hope that as time goes on they will consider and give more attention to getting the ministry departments and the industries out of the metropolitan area. There is too much attention to the metropolitan area, too much attention to Vancouver.

When the ombudsman put in his office, I said: "Mr. Ombudsman, that office shouldn't be in Vancouver; it should be out in the valley — Coquitlam, Surrey, anywhere except Vancouver. I don't care where it is, but put it outside the city — Burnaby." But where did it go? Mind you, he can do as he pleases. Maple Ridge would have been excellent. But I didn't think they'd go that far out; that's a little bit too far. But that's where the new offices should go: outside the city of Vancouver. Vancouver doesn't need them, but the country does. We want to create employment; that is our policy. That is the way I would like to see it, and I hope it will become government policy.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for hearing me. I know it's been very disjointed, but I want to say to you how much I appreciate what is going on in British Columbia. I think everyone should appreciate the forward look of the province of British Columbia — forward and upward, not only in Vancouver but in the whole of the province and the north, where just three years ago there wasn't one single oil drilling rig. Within a year there were over 200. Now there are over 400 drilling rigs looking for oil. That's because it's fair and because they have confidence. Under the socialist regime would you get anybody to go up there and look for oil? Not a chance, because they said: "You find the oil, we want it." Did miners go out and mine? No way, because they said to them: "Listen, you find the mine, and we'll take it." Well, who's going out? Nobody. It takes a private enterprise system to create jobs and enthusiasm. That's what we have and what they haven't got.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, that it's up to this country never to forget those three years. Remember the government that built up British Columbia — before and now — but the three deadly years under the heavy hand of socialism. This budget erased all that. Let them be our friends, let them be there, but let the people know and keep them there, because the deadly hand of socialism will kill whatever lives, industrially, in this province.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, how much I appreciate the opportunity of having had these few words. I'll rise again at some later date to speak further on similar subjects.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Dewdney, who has just taken his seat, I'm certainly very disappointed that I'm not going to be able to support the budget. I'm really disappointed about this, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that surely by now the government would have had some understanding of the needs of the people of this province, and that with that magnificent surplus which they claim they have they would have tried to meet some of these needs. Yet we find that once again they bring down a budget which fails to address itself to the need for employment, protection against the high interest rates that people are facing in this province and the delivery of services to people that is so necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by talking about the ways in which the budget has failed the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, because indeed it has. As you know, because of its geographical location Burnaby runs the risk of being a transportation corridor for all of the lower mainland. I'm glad that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is here, because transportation and traffic are certainly one of the major issues facing the municipality of Burnaby at this time, in particular the eastern end of that municipality, the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency.

Going anywhere in the lower mainland, to New Westminster, passing through to Surrey, just about wherever you're going or coming from, you have to go through Burnaby. Burnaby has the misfortune of having five major throughways running through that riding. If one is not careful in terms of planning, Mr. Speaker, what Burnaby could end up being, as I said before, is a transportation corridor. It could be a place not fit for human beings to live in if one were not careful in terms of planning. Traffic congestion is a major problem. There are certain times of the day when it's not possible to move along Canada Way, Lougheed or Kingsway, any of these major arterial routes that pass through that particular constituency. So the protection of the neighbourhoods, homes and communities has got to be one of the major commitments that any person who represents the riding of Burnaby-Edmonds has to have.

That's why I was so disappointed when the Minister of Transportation and Highways.... I should say the Premier, because he took over the responsibility for making the announcement, which I must say he did to save your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson), because of your vain and idle threat to resign unless the bridge was built. He sacrificed Burnaby-Edmonds to save you. I'm not quite sure whether that was a fair trade or not. I like you, but despite that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Highways took into consideration the kind of impact that bridge is going to have on the quality of life and on the lives of people living in the eastern end of the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency-the eastern end of the Burnaby municipality.

There already is a problem of traffic — traffic coming from everywhere and going everywhere. The municipality is trying to deal with this. The new mayor, Mr. Mercier, and some of his councillors came over and met with the Minister of Transportation and Highways and placed before them the regional plan, the plan that would somehow try to relieve the congestion in the residential areas of Burnaby. They explained to the minister the need that Burnaby had for some kind of financial commitment from him. I'm sure they went away convinced that the minister understood and had some kind of compassion for those people who chose to make Burnaby their home — who chose to raise their families there, send their children to school there, and grow old there. When they came to meet with the minister they pointed out to him that their priority was to get traffic out of the residential area, not for more traffic to be poured into the residential area as a result of relieving the traffic congestion in other areas.

This is a difficult task. Everyone knows you cannot look at one area in isolation. You cannot look just at Burnaby, or at Delta, or at Richmond, or at Surrey; in fact, there has to be some kind of regional approach to the moving of auto-

[ Page 1565 ]

mobiles. That's what we're moving — we're moving automobiles. We're still waiting for the government to make some kind of commitment to the moving of people. Everything that has been done so far has served to increase automobile traffic and to increase the moving of automobiles. That's why the GVRD, in its infinite wisdom, designed an overall transportation plan for the lower mainland region. Yet we hear from them that they were not consulted about the decision to build the Annacis crossing, or even its location. That doesn't make any sense when you think that those kinds of decisions impact on the people who live in that area.

If there is a coming-together of all of these regions under an umbrella such as the GVRD, which travelled through the various municipalities holding public meetings — I certainly attended a number of them when they met in East Burnaby.... They said to the people living in East Burnaby: "Tell us what you would like to see a transportation plan do for this particular community in which you live." They accepted that input in good faith. They proceeded to design a plan which all of the municipalities covered by the GVRD accepted. As I said, the mayor of Burnaby and some of his councillors came to see the minister responsible and placed their proposition in front of him and asked for some financial commitment from the government so that this plan could be put into place. Imagine their surprise, therefore, when they received an invitation to breakfast, which I think was at 7:30 in the morning. It was a good time to have breakfast, but nonetheless they were presented with a fait accompli. They were told: "Here is the crossing. This is where it's going to be located."

Although I am going to raise this issue again under his estimates, I know that the minister is going to be speaking as soon as I take my seat. I hope that he will use the opportunity to tell us what kind of input he had from the people living in the area which is going to be affected by this crossing. Did you speak to anybody in the East Burnaby area? Did you speak to anybody who would be living along the new Marine Way? Did you speak to any of the people who are presently living there now as the traffic comes off that crossing and pours into the eastern end of Burnaby? Did you find out from them what their feeling was about what this bridge is going to do to their particular community?

I want to go on record as saying that I have great sympathy for the dilemma faced by commuters coming from Delta and Surrey and other areas, but I don't think that the moving of cars should be the priority, first of all. Secondly, I don't think that shifting the traffic congestion problem from one area to another is going to be the solution. I don't think that you save one community by destroying another. I don't think you should sacrifice one community to another community. That is not the solution, and if, in fact, that has to be the solution, then at least there should have been the courtesy of sitting down and speaking to the people who live in the area which is about to be destroyed. At least sit down and have some kind of consultation with the GVRD.

They maintain, Mr. Speaker, that they were not consulted. Maybe their statement is not correct, I don't know, but they've issued their own press release in which they say that there should have been consultation and there wasn't. This was issued on March 12, 1980. They said: "It would have been helpful if the provincial government had consulted with the Greater Vancouver Regional District before making an announcement about plans to build a crossing of the Fraser River at Annacis Island." This comes from the directors and the board chairman, Mr. Emmott. It goes on to say that "several of the directors knew that the possibility of a crossing was in the offing for many years, but they do not think that the government's announcement should have come as a surprise." I don't know if it would have made it any easier, quite frankly, to notify them first, but it is possible that the decision made by the government would have been modified if they'd had the courtesy to at least consult with the GVRD — and they're duly elected people, too, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, what the new Marine Way in Burnaby does — the one which is going to be picking up most of this traffic — is to cut through an area that's pretty much used in terms of housing development for medium- and low-cost housing — the kind of housing that is really desperately needed at this particular time. It also is going to go through some of the last really good land left in Burnaby for growing food on. I know that when most people think about Burnaby they don't think about it in terms of arable land or in terms of farmland, but in fact, down on the flats there's some of the richest and most productive land — which is still being used in terms of growing vegetables and food which help to feed people in Vancouver and British Columbia. And that land is going to be sacrificed.

Maybe we are sentimental on this side of the House, caring about arable land; maybe we are bleeding hearts.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And maybe we are practical. I don't know who said it, but someone once mentioned that they weren't making it any more, and that's probably one of the reasons why we place such a very high value on it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Class 1 land, that's what it is. And the new Marine Way is going to be cutting straight through that, Mr. Speaker, and that's good land for food, and land that's still within the price range of some people, in terms of building medium-priced housing, and even low-cost housing — although in today's market it's difficult to talk about low-cost housing, because we are told that no such thing exists.

The other thing, of course — which I think is the most cruel thing of all — is that this bridge is not going to be of any benefit to the people of Burnaby. It's not being put there for them. Once again, Burnaby is going to be used as a transportation corridor for people living elsewhere. I'm going to be raising this issue again and again and again, and I'm not doing it now, because I don't want to be tedious and repetitious, and there are other things that I want to say. But I think that the minister responsible should know that he has done a great disservice to the people of Burnaby by not consulting, first of all, with the GVRD, by not talking to the people who live in the area, and by destroying that very valuable land in terms of its ability to grow food, and in terms of housing, which is such a crucial need.

It wasn't necessary, because the GVRD and most of the people living in the lower mainland have said to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser): "What we want at this time is a commitment to public transit. What we need is to move people rather than automobiles." It is ludicrous in this day and age, with the rising cost of energy, for the government to bring in a budget which gives you a 2

[ Page 1566 ]

percent discount on your sales tax if you buy a car that gives you good gas mileage, and then turn around and cater to the excessive use of the automobile by continually building more and more and more facilities for the automobile rather than for moving people.

This decision to introduce at this time that crossing — rumour, incidentally, has it that it will never be built, and this is one time we hope rumour is right — sets back the commitment to public transit. That is what is so tragic about this. The kind of funding that should be available to upgrade the public transit system as it now exists, and to place seed money into the development of rapid transit, is being detoured into building another crossing for the benefit of the automobile, which is going to destroy the quality of life of people living in a specific neighbourhood.

It's short-sighted and it's stupid. I withdraw the word "stupid" because I know it's unparliamentary, but it's short-sighted. I'm not saying the minister is stupid, but I think the decision to continually cater to the needs of the automobile is not a very smart decision. It's not a very smart decision, and it takes a lot of courage on the part of a government to recognize that and to do something about it. This government had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in this budget to make a commitment to rapid transit and to upgrading the public transportation system — which they have done a lot to degrade, quite frankly. Certainly that is true in the Burnaby area. Instead of that, once again the commitment has been made to sacrifice people to the automobile, which is very short-sighted on the part of this government.

As I said before, I am leaving this whole question of transportation, traffic corridors and the destruction of local bus systems and commuter Fastbus systems in the riding. I am leaving it now because I am going to be dealing with it again, of course, when the minister's estimates are up.

The second issue, Mr. Speaker, of really major concern in the area of Burnaby is housing; it's no different, really, than anywhere else in British Columbia. I noticed that today's Province mentioned that Vancouver is the worst in all of Canada in terms of its lack of accommodation, its lack of housing for people. It is a very major problem in the Burnaby constituency — a lack of housing that impacts on some very special people. I want to break it down into different categories.

Seniors' housing. I notice that the funding from the lottery has been going toward developing seniors' housing in Kelowna and Penticton. I certainly want to congratulate the government on that, but there is still a very serious need for seniors' housing in the Burnaby area. We have a couple of long-term care homes. You know the history of the New Vista Society; it was started by Ernie Winch, who started himself, with his own hands, building that home. It was always designed to be for senior citizens so that people, as they grow old, would have a place where they could live in dignity. There is a waiting list for that home. It is a massive complex and there still is a waiting list.

The Canada Way Care Centre has a waiting list of over eight months to get into that home. The New Vista care home has a waiting list of over two years. We are talking about housing for seniors at this time. There is a waiting list in every one of the houses or apartment complexes, whether it's at 7676 Kingsway, the Doug Drummond Home; wherever you look there is a waiting list. All of the housing which is available for senior citizens in the riding is full and there is a waiting list.

Surely the budget could have addressed itself, surely the budget could have made some kind of commitment — a massive financial commitment — to the building of seniors' housing right across the province, because I'm sure that Burnaby is no different than anywhere else. This incredible need for housing, which we could see coming, which we've spoken about in this House for years.... You know, as soon as this government took over, Mr. Speaker, at the end of 1975 and the beginning of 1976, they immediately dried up all of the funds, all of the money, in terms of building houses and the government itself getting into the business of supplying housing. So they've had five years for the situation to go from bad to worse, until now we've reached a crisis situation in terms of housing people, and certainly in terms of housing seniors.

Dania Home, Normanna Rest Home — all of them have waiting lists, in many instances of over a year, to get into this housing. What's happening to the seniors in the meantime? Really, that is the concern that we have. With this real shortage of housing and the ceiling being lifted off rents — rent control being lifted in a number of areas or being rendered useless because inflation has pushed rentals way beyond the point where they're any longer covered by rent control — what is going to happen to the senior citizens who need housing?

Burnaby has a very large component of seniors living there. For many years it used to be one community where it was possible to get reasonable housing and reasonable transportation; it was a reasonable community in which to live. Now we're finding that that is changing. The people who are being hurt by that, of course, are people on fixed incomes. Later I want to talk more about seniors and what is going to happen to them when the Urban Transit Authority takes over the buses on April 1. Maybe I should just interject now, and say that what we're finding is about to happen to Burnaby is the same dilemma which occurred in Victoria in terms of travelling at a reduced rate on the buses. The senior citizens are going to lose the bus passes they have been using once the Urban Transit Authority takes over the bus system, because the Urban Transit Authority says it's not in the business of welfare. Of course, the bus passes were issued by Human Resources. The Burnaby council has approached the government, because something has to be done about this.

What's going to happen to the senior citizens when they lose their bus passes and when there is no affordable housing for them? They continue to be on a fixed income. The cost of food continues to go up; they have no control over that. The cost of hydro continues to increase; they have no control over that. The cost of clothing continues to inflate; they have no control over that. What's going to happen to seniors? The budget did not address itself to that dilemma. They were totally ignored by this budget. It failed them completely. The policies of the government are penalizing them for growing old and for being on fixed incomes in this province. They were not relieved one iota by this budget. The government goes around and brags about the size of its budget, but just stop a senior citizen in the Burnaby constituency and ask: "What benefit has this budget been to you in terms of your housing, your shelter costs, in terms of what is going to happen to you after April 1 when you lose your bus pass and in terms of how it protects you against the inflated cost of food and clothing? What protection has it given you in terms of the increases on your taxes if you live in your own home, and on a mortgage if you have one which needs to be

[ Page 1567 ]

renewed?" None of these things were addressed by this budget.

It is just not possible to support a budget which fails people who, through their labour to a large extent, made it possible for this province to be as wealthy as it is today. If we're going to have to punish somebody, it doesn't make sense to punish the seniors. I think we owe them something. I'm very disappointed that this budget has not at least tried to ensure that they have dignity in terms of their need for shelter, food, clothing and transportation, and that this budget has failed them so miserably.

The budget has also failed the younger people, the students. The president of Simon Fraser University had to make an appeal to the government. There is no housing in Burnaby — not just for the seniors, as I said before, but there's no housing for the nearly 3,000 students of Simon Fraser who require off-campus housing each semester. Dr. Peterson appealed to the government to get into the business of building some housing. I'm sure he wasn't asking for 3,000 units, but he was asking for a commitment to the building of some housing to meet the crunch. Surely a number of the Simon Fraser students — I hesitate to say most — want to live within a reasonable distance of that university. The university is right smack in North Burnaby, but the students live throughout Burnaby.

There is no commitment for housing for seniors; there is no commitment for housing for students. When the president made his appeal he asked that we look at.... He urged Premier Bill Bennett to review the policy that denies provincial funds for low-cost student housing. There was not a mention in the budget that the Premier was even slightly aware that the president of Simon Fraser had placed this appeal in front of him, not the slightest indication that the Premier heard, that he knew and understood that there was a crisis situation in terms of housing for young people attending university — certainly not from the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the third group that I want to talk about are the people on welfare, many of whom live in the Burnaby area. They're really in a dilemma. Because of the shortage of housing accommodation, landlords in the Burnaby area have now decided that they do not want to rent accommodation to people on welfare. In one case in particular, a single-parent mother brought to my attention that she had actually been accepted by an apartment manager, to move into an apartment complex known as Sylvan Garden Apartments, and when the manager found that she was a welfare recipient, he informed her that it was not possible for him to honour his acceptance of her and that she could not have the apartment, because it was the policy of the owners of that complex of apartments not to rent to welfare recipients.

This woman decided that that was an act of discrimination, that she was being discriminated against because she was poor, because she was on welfare. So she took the matter to the Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Commission informed her that there's no law in this province against discriminating against people because they're poor. It's perfectly legal in this province to discriminate against a person because he's poor. It's not covered by the Code. She didn't believe this, and since I am the representative for her riding, she came to my office and placed this case in front of me. I know the Code and I read it through again, and sure enough there is no law in this province against discriminating against a person because he's poor. And there is absolutely nothing that the Human Rights Commission could do about this.

I contacted the owner of the apartment complex, and he repeated that, indeed, he did not rent his apartments to welfare recipients, and he gave a number of reasons. I pointed out to him that these reasons could apply to anyone, that they were not peculiar to welfare recipients. He agreed, but said that in fact, when he had tried to get some kind of satisfaction from them, he was referred to the Human Resources office in the area, and the social worker would usually say there was absolutely nothing that they could do. He was talking about things like leaving without paying the last month's rent, or damage deposits and that kind of thing — which they would not leave with him.

So I contacted the Human Resources office and met with the director of the office and some of the workers there. And, sure enough, it is the policy of the department. Not only does it not cover moving costs now that it has cut out its special needs funding, but it does not cover damage deposits — it will not pay in the event of the place needing to be cleaned up after the person leaves, or whatever. The criticisms of the landlord were not that the recipients of welfare left his property in bad shape; his criticism was that when he approached the Ministry of Human Resources to do something about it, they said: "Tough beans."

I approached the landlord again and asked him to have a meeting with the social workers, and suggested to him that maybe their combined forces brought to bear on the Ministry of Human Resources would bring about some change in policy, so that this would be considered as being eligible for a crisis grant-because the only way you can get any additional funding out of Human Resources is if your life is in danger — there could be some way that it could be constituted that this should be eligible for a crisis grant. Unfortunately the landlord, Mr. Popoff, said that he would be willing to meet with the workers, and then at the last minute he cancelled this meeting. But he's not the only landlord in the area.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I don't know. I think that when the Ministry of Human Resources is failing to discharge its responsibility to the people in receipt of welfare, I don't know if I would put all of the blame on the landlord — some, maybe, but not all of it.

But certainly the budget which was brought down by this government, bragging of surpluses, could have taken into account the crisis in housing. And if, in order to help people in our community get housing who are vulnerable by virtue of the fact that they are poor, some additional funds could have been added to the budget of the Ministry of Human Resources or whatever, that should have been done. As it is, no such thing happened.

The other issue in terms of housing is that there is no housing for people with children. Landlords are quite open about that: they do not rent to people with children. In some instances they say "children or pets," putting them both in the same category. You're not going to be able to force landlords to change without making this a human rights issue, which this government is obviously not prepared to do. But surely some kind of massive financial commitment should have been made in this budget to the creation of housing. It should have been a priority area in this budget, and it wasn't there. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it's just not going to be possible for me to support this budget.

[ Page 1568 ]

The third area of concern in the riding is the government's policy to continually shift the cost of education off the provincial government and onto the local homeowners. I know that the Minister of Education is not in the House now, but Mr. Smith received a letter from the president and secretary of the Burnaby Parent-Teacher Council, in which they said to him: "We wish to bring to your attention a matter of great concern." It goes on to talk about the fact that in 1975, 66.95 percent of the cost of education was borne by the provincial government. Today — in 1979 — that has dropped to 50 percent. What the new budget has done is to drop the responsibility of the province even further. The provincial share is now a mere 45.17 percent, a drop of another 14.39 percent, or a drop of nearly 31 percent in the last six years. It goes on to say that if cost-sharing continues at the present rate, it can be assumed that the province will be out of the business of funding public education in Burnaby by 1982.

You know what's happening at the same time that they're shifting the cost of education onto the taxpayer in Burnaby? At the same time they are integrating handicapped children into the public school system. The Donald Paterson School is now integrated into the public school system. The municipality has to accept full responsibility for the expenses of that particular school. More and more, even with the homeowner grant, the burden is being shifted.

The B.C. Teachers' Federation and a number of other groups sent a resolution asking that the government desist from this shifting of more and more of the burden of education onto the local taxpayer and away from the provincial coffers.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: My blue light is on? I haven't even started.

Very quickly, I hope that the Minister of Education is in fact going to take a second look at the Home and School Association's request for funding, because as you know they are dependent upon their fees, which aren't adequate. They have 5,000 members who make a major contribution to the quality of education. The Ministry of Education is always consulting with them. As they refer to themselves, they are the "token parent" on every board that the government uses. This is the only province that doesn't fund them. That certainly is of major concern to the residents of Burnaby.

There are a number of other concerns: lack of funding and facilities for day care in the province. I could go on for hours talking about day care. I guess I'm going to have to wait until the minister's estimates come up. The department is changing its policy about community grants; it is opting out of the business of funding community groups and putting more and more of the services under contract. Contracting for services is jeopardizing groups like SPARC and other ancient and important groups that have made a major contribution to the province, certainly in terms of services to children.

I don't know what to do. I'm running out of time, Mr. Speaker, and it's such a dreadful budget.

HON. MR. MAIR: Why don't you sit down?

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not going to sit down, Mr. Minister, because I have a couple of other things that I would like to refer to. But for the main, I want to repeat that certainly the budget has failed to address itself to some very basic needs and very basic services for all the people of British Columbia, certainly for the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. It has not addressed itself to the massive unemployment which we experience in this province today despite the fact that we are a very wealthy province and there is a surplus. It has not addressed itself to the areas of job creation, housing, inflation, etc. I cannot support this budget.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I've been sitting here now for three weeks and listening to all these dissertations so I thought that I'd contribute my part today. First of all, I would like to congratulate you, sir, on your promotion to Deputy Speaker and wish you the very best for the ensuing sessions of this parliament. I'd also like to offer my congratulations to the new colleagues we have in the cabinet, specifically the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I'm sure that they will enjoy themselves, but I can say, as one of the original members, we certainly look forward to their input and I know that they're very capable of doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, we're here today to discuss the budget before us. In case I forget, I want to tell you that I certainly am very supportive of this excellent budget which, I know, is very exciting for all the citizens of British Columbia. This budget leads us in our step into the eighties. What our citizens are looking for is leadership; and they certainly will find it through the budget of 1980.

The basic philosophy of this government, Mr. Speaker, is that we provide an atmosphere for a healthy and confident private sector which is required to provide jobs for our citizens and the economy, to enable widespread benefits for our people, and by that I mean that we want an investment climate in this province that encourages investment and, in turn, creates jobs and, from that, wealth to the provincial treasury, so we can carry out probably the best social programs that any province in Canada and maybe in the free world has. Government has no money other than that which it takes from its citizens. If we haven't got a strong economy we are not able to get the revenue to carry out the wonderful social programs we have. Of course, we're expanding on those all the time. The new denticare program is an example of that.

I'd just like to compare the current finances of the province, specifically the reporting, with those of a few years back. This government has instituted quarterly reporting of financial statements. This government, when they were elected in 1975, promised we would have an auditor-general, and we now have an auditor-general who, as a matter of fact, just made her second report. All this is through the leadership of our fine Premier who brought our province back from the wrack and ruin of the great socialist years, '72 to '75. That's when the citizens of this province decided they'd had enough and they rallied around our leader who is now our Premier. We gave them a real spanking in 1975, a real good licking, even to the tune — people forget — that the Premier of that day was defeated in his own riding, which very rarely happened in the history of our politics. That's how badly the citizens of this province wanted to get rid of them.

I had the honour to be in the first cabinet that Bill Bennett formed and I can assure you we sure inherited lots of problems and real messes. But what they fail to tell us here is that the '75 election was called for a coverup, Mr. Speaker, and we found out following December 22, 1975, what they were

[ Page 1569 ]

covering up. In fact, if you recall, Mr. Speaker, they wanted the election so they could get back into power and really tell us the financial state of our province. But it didn't work that way; the people knew something was off the rails, and we found out and inherited the mess that they had made.

For the record, I would like to remind this House that when they assumed power in September 1972 the cookie jar was overflowing. They did better than that; they spent all that money plus the revenues and ended up on December 11, 1975, when the people voted, with a deficit of $260-odd million. It was an absolute disgrace. If it had happened in any other part of our society, there are other things to do. But in any case, the majority of our citizens saw that something had to happen.

I might say, related to this budget, Mr. Speaker and members of this House, that in this budget is $26 million, the second instalment on the debt they created over the experiment in socialism we had from 1972 to 1975. We went through an election in 1979, and in some places you would think they'd actually won. But they were defeated again in 1979, and I don't think we'll ever see the day when this province will see a socialist-led government as we had from 1972 to 1974.

The people on the other side are very suspicious of everybody and everything, including their own people. I think if they could clear that out of their minds they'd have a better opportunity, but they don't really even respect each other. They're suspicious of everybody, and it permeates the way they operate here, which is a bit of a disaster and has been since this House started.

Mr. Speaker, to criticize this budget really amazes me, because tax reductions have been made in this budget. There are also provisions for the future. They don't seem to realize that over a period of four years of hard work by this government we have created an economy that is generating funds so that our people are gainfully employed — the majority, I might say, at very good salary levels. They are doing quite well, thank you very much, as well as having good social programs.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a comment or two regarding the item of special warrants, which they say this government has the largest of. I was here from 1972 to 1975, and I'll never forget the overrun, or the clerical error in their financing. As I say, they called it a clerical error or an overrun, but it was for $100 million. Really, to this day, as a citizen of British Columbia I've never found out what they did with that money. The burning part of that was that they didn't have it in the first place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, a government policy. We've had special warrants for roadwork, and we can see the improvement in our roads. We got value for the overrun. I don't think they even accept the fact that the $200 million for interest stabilization that was passed from surplus funds by special warrant.... They seem to want to say that we've done nothing about housing. Well, that was innovative. No government has ever done that. Certainly the funds were picked up in a hurry, but at least it was a start.

The last thing I would like to say about special warrants is that there was a huge difference between their special warrants and ours. They didn't have the money and we did.

That's good management of the fiscal responsibilities of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get onto another subject for a minute. The great leader and president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, when I saw him on television, said he was very unhappy with this budget because it wasn't job-creating. Well, I don't know where he's been, but that is not a fact. When you have so-called responsible citizens like that making statements when they're asked for their comments by our wonderful reporters, they should really admit that they don't know what they are talking about, if they want to continue making this type of statement.

I would like to deal first of all with forestry. It was revealed right there — this man knew what was revealed there.... Forestry is one of the big sections for our good labour force in this province. The money for forestry from this government is doubled in this budget, to make sure we have a basic forest industry from now on and into the future for our people that are coming. Apart from all that, the reforestation program will supply a lot of the additional jobs on the reforestation side itself.

The other thing I haven't told the House — and I should tell them — is that I'm always happy to say I'm the MLA for Cariboo. Forestry is a big item in my riding. I might say that our people in the Cariboo are delighted with this budget, and delighted with the way this government operates. All they want is a good climate to operate in; this government has given them that. In my riding they don't want handouts from government, as we hear they do in some places. They only want to be able to get on with the business of making a living and, hopefully, making a profit; they'll take their chances, and they're glad this government gives them this opportunity.

While I'm on forestry, there's over a billion dollars already under construction, or committed, in the forest industry alone in this province. That's the confidence that sector has in the ability of this government. It's a funny thing, but most of that happened after the May 1979 election. They weren't so sure about British Columbia. They made lots of plans. But following the May 1979 election they really started spending it, making major commitments and investment in construction. In that regard, on April 1 my riding of Cariboo will be starting on a new thermal mechanical pulp mill at an investment of $80 million or $90 million, with 300 or 400 jobs during construction and 150 permanent jobs afterwards. This applies to my riding, as it applies to other ridings around this province. The atmosphere has been created.

Now I want to get on to mining a bit. You know, mining started in Cariboo riding. You hear all the rest of these people talking about it, but the gold rush of 1860 took place in the famous community of Barkerville, and Barkerville is still there. In any case, in about 1862 Barkerville was larger than Vancouver, and it was the largest community north of San Francisco. In those days the people of Barkerville didn't even know whether Vancouver would ever amount to anything.

The mining policy of this government as compared to that of our friends the socialists over there is the difference between day and night. With their mineral royalties legislation, from '73 to '75, they drove all the investment out of this province. Our government brought on legislation to clear this up and again create an atmosphere for investment in mining. As I told you, Mr. Speaker, I sat through this House from '72 to '75. I was rather proud I was one of the few who survived the onslaught of the socialist hordes. Anyway, they got

[ Page 1570 ]

playing around with mining legislation. I think one of the better things that came up in opposition in those days.... They had two or three Ministers of Mines during their administration; one of them is the present member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). It was said then — and it was certainly true-of the Ministers of Mines the NDP had from '72 to '75 that they were the best Ministers of Mines the Yukon ever had. They drove all our mining interests to the Yukon. I never forgot that.

Now, of course, this is all changed around. The last thing I heard — I think it was during the last election or a little before that — the now Leader of the Opposition said: "You mining people, don't you worry about voting for us, because if you want a deal you come to my office." What a great way to have a mining policy: you'd come to what he thought would be the Premier's office. There were deals for everybody.

That's another thing that leads me to the short debate we're having here. They have been here, and there's nothing new. I've been here too long, maybe. They've never contributed anything in here to construct.... Where's their alternate program? Everything we do is wrong; it's all wrong. I'd like to hear what their mining policy is, or any other policy — forestry or anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been listening.

HON. MR. FRASER: I've been listening to you for three weeks. Now you just sit down, and you listen to me. However, Mr. Speaker, back to "where is mining now?" Mining is booming all over the province of British Columbia. I see the landslide member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) just left, and that's why he left, because his riding — I've been all through his riding — has a great mining background, and mining is going on up there in spite of him, and it is great to see. New mines are opening up or they're under construction, and again we have commitments of over a billion dollars in mining in this province of British Columbia. This government has supplied the legislation and environment, and they are getting on. Again, they only started this when they were sure that we'd be around for a while, and it all followed the May 1979 election, after the second defeat we gave those people over there.

Again, I would just like to say that oil and gas exploration is booming, as we've heard before from my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), booming all over the province, specifically in his riding. And there are great things going on in oil and gas exploration in the North Peace River riding.

But again, back to my own riding of Cariboo, I am happy to tell you that oil and gas exploration has started there because of the policy of this government. They're drilling for oil and gas and I wish them lots of luck in finding it. But I want to pay tribute to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in regard to the work going on in my riding, drilling for oil and gas. Not only did the government of British Columbia get a half million dollars in fees from this fine Canadian company that bought the rights to go in there, Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd., but they also got a work commitment from them to spend over $27.5 million over the next five years, and they've got a bond for that. So I want to deal with government policy. We not only get the fees that are subscribed — and they are always hollering over there that we're the giveaway gang; they don't know anything about this at all — but we have that company's bond that they will carry out $27.5 million worth of development work over the next five years. Of course, if they don't, then they've defaulted on their bond and our province is that much better off. The point I'm trying to make is we not only get the fees for the oil and gas, but I want to give credit to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for also pinning these people down so that they will do development work.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture is a big and important part or segment of our economy, and generally speaking is in fairly good shape. I just want to refer to my own riding again and tell you that that's an important part. Last year, out of the community of Williams Lake, 46,000 head of beef cattle were shipped to market. Williams Lake is the bull shipping capital of the world, and Williams Lake is part of the Cariboo.

Back to the budget and job creation — it is an absolute great budget, creating jobs in so many areas that it's hard to enumerate them all. At the present time, provided for in this budget, the largest hospital construction program ever is going on. This budget assures that it will continue to go on. We have B.C. Place, a great innovative project thought up by the Premier of our province and our leader, along with a lot of other people. Believe me, it will be a fact of life within two or three years, and that will create lots and lots of jobs for planners, for architects, for labourers, and so on. You all know about the Annacis crossing, and I know that you have heard about it, Mr. Speaker. That will provide jobs and lots of them. As a matter of fact, at the height of construction.... And it will be built in spite of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds' (Ms. Brown's) remarks saying that there are rumours going around that it won't be built. I assure you on behalf of this government, it will be. Construction will start next year, and at the height of construction it will employ about 4,000 people in different construction trades and so on on that one project alone.

I've mentioned the new mines, the gas and oil exploration and the new pulp mills, and I mentioned the one in the Cariboo in addition to the ones going into Prince George and on Vancouver Island. All kinds of new jobs will be created, not only on the construction side but permanently afterwards, caused by the policies of this government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure glad to see that you found time to come back.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member showing contempt for the Chair?

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, never, Mr. Speaker — never. I want to refer again to the negative Nellies that are over on the other side. They always see the negative side of everything. They're always talking about the bankruptcies in our province. They get great glee out of reporting the number of bankruptcies that take place in this province. Well, I'd like to look again at the positive side and just show you what has happened in our province since we cleaned our souls of the socialists in 1975.

In 1975 there were 10,267 companies registered in British Columbia; in 1976 there were 12,355 registered; in 1977 there were 13,209, in 1978 there were 15,215; and in 1979 there were 17,611. I'd like them to keep on talking about the

[ Page 1571 ]

bankruptcies, but I'd like to talk about the companies that are incorporated — on the optimistic side. We've had 7,000 companies incorporate in the province of British Columbia since we've been government in this period of four years.

On the job factor — just to comment on my own direct responsibilities of transportation and highways — yes, we're building and rebuilding roads and bridges all over this province. We intend to continue with that and you can see all of that in the budget. For this year, 1980, it will probably create an additional 10,000 jobs from the programs that are laid out here. So what's all this talk that the budget doesn't look after the economy and it doesn't create jobs and so on?

While I'm on the subject of highways and roads, I think it's about time we found out from the other side what their position is. They say that we're a blacktop government. Every day I deal with them and they're asking me, as the Minister of Highways, for roads. I'm quite confused. When we get in the House here they call us "a blacktop government." I want to say to those members over there: put your hands on the table; let's see where you do stand, as a party. None of your party has ever levelled with us as to where you stand. We know what you did when you were government. You let the main highways and throughways go down to gravel.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the minister please address the Chair? It would assist me in keeping order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will.

In any case, I'd like them to let me know just where they do stand, because it seems that their party policy is to let all our highways, streets and so on fall into disrepair. We can only go by when they had the opportunity to be government, but where do they stand now? That's what I'd like to know, particularly after I listened to the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown).

I just want to comment regarding the Annacis crossing, in reference to that member. I have a letter from the mayor of Burnaby — I suggest that member should contact him — saying he is delighted with the thing. He approves of the Annacis crossing and how it will have very little effect on the community of Burnaby.

I want to deal with another thing. I hope I have time. I'd like to deal with why we have problems in transportation. I don't think this has been said before, and I'd like to relate it. Maybe we do cater to vehicles, but does anybody know what has happened in this province in the last five years regarding our vehicle population? If they would relate this to the problems they have traffic-wise, they'll see why all of us have really been standing still, not living up to our obligations, and letting a bad situation deteriorate further.

I am now referring to the total number of vehicle registrations from 1975 onwards — passenger, commercial, motorcycles and trailers. The totals I give cover all phases of licensed vehicles. In 1975 we had 1,349,382 licensed vehicles; in 1976 that had increased to 1,411,380; in 1977 it increased to 1,556,262; in 1978 it increased to 1,682,710; and in 1979 it increased to 1,845,821. Mr. Speaker, within a couple of thousand vehicles, this is an increase in the vehicles that use our public roads and highways of 500,000 in a period of five years. I can assure you that this government didn't force any of these people to buy them; it's the choice of the majority of our citizens in this province. What this government is trying to do is to accommodate some of these increases. This is a horrendous increase. We can't stand still with our transportation system. That is why this government says they will continue to upgrade.

I don't want to lecture anybody, but I'd suggest that some of our communities have done exactly the reverse and tried to stop the motor-vehicle, and it can't be done. It shouldn't be done. We have a standstill situation, and we have a lot of municipalities plugged with traffic. I see some members here, certainly from the other side, who know what that is. Something has to be done about this. There is no indication, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this trend is slowing down. As a matter of fact it seems to be increasing. The motor-vehicle is what the majority of our citizens choose for transportation, and I'd suggest to you that if we don't at least try to accommodate some of this increase, there's going to be real trouble. We are already behind now — not only the provincial government and several municipalities, but, of course, our worst messes are on the lower mainland, where not a lot really has happened to accommodate the increased vehicular population that we have.

As far as the government is concerned, we're going to do something about it. The Hastings-Cassiar corridor is going to be built. That is about the heaviest and most densely populated vehicle area in the province of British Columbia. Yes, we're going to build the Annacis crossing.

Back to this budget. There is also ample funding in here for rapid transit. We have to upgrade our street systems and our highway systems, and we have to go along with rapid transit as well.

We have to move along with it all. I realize that our government is a little bit ahead of the municipalities. They have been talking and planning rapid transit. I just say to them that we are certainly ready to move. The Urban Transit Authority is set up. Let's get on and get it done. But they haven't.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. We're not going to go and buy any old streetcars and bring them over and put them in a warehouse in Vancouver or New Westminster and find out who's going to pay the storage on them if they get here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, would you bring that member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to order? I have listened to his guff for the last three weeks here and I have never had a word to say.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

HON. MR. FRASER: In any case, I say we need to improve all avenues of transportation — rapid transit included. I go to the people, and all they think about is rapid transit. Yes, it's a great thing, but we don't want rapid transit to go ahead and then bring our street system in the great city of Vancouver, for instance, to a halt, which it will.

The other thing about rapid transit.... I've never been clear what "rapid transit" really means. It means one thing to one public person and another thing to another, but it doesn't move any goods. You should keep that in mind.

[ Page 1572 ]

Sure, it moves people, but we also have to move goods to keep our economy going in our province, wherever it is. That's why I say both have to go along, and this government will gladly help to expedite it. What it seems they're doing is having big arguments and so on about how they.... I think the planning days are over, and it is time to get on with some actual work.

I imagine my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to close on another phase of transportation. There are two or three items, just for a moment.

The British Columbia Railroad. I would like to mention it. It is owned by the people of the province of British Columbia, and I'm very proud of that railroad. I'm very proud of everything that has happened. It has its operating problems like any other public transportation system, but it is the lifeline to the central part and the northern part of British Columbia. Again, this government is carrying out its commitment to that railroad. We have done two-thirds of the work that we promised we would on the Fort St. John–Fort Nelson extension. In this budget again there are further funds to complete that three-year upgrading of that extension. As you know, it was recommended by the royal commission that this extension be closed down. The government didn't accept that recommendation and now, hopefully, we will have a reliable extension of that railroad. The biggest thing of all is that this government has made a commitment to do something about the debt retirement of that very vital transportation system, and that again is in this budget.

While I'm on the subject of municipalities, regarding transit and so on — and the upgrading of street systems to accommodate the increase in motor vehicles that we all have — this government brought in revenue-sharing to help the municipalities. Our ministry has a close relationship there, as we help approve the projects with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to help them upgrade their street systems to accommodate a lot of the things that we'll need in the future. This is a first, and I'm sure that the benefits from it, while they've started, will show more and more as time goes on.

I think that I'm just about out of time, but I'm happy to have said these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I want to end up on this note: I've never been more optimistic as a lifelong British Columbia citizen than I am now about our province. The economy's good, we've got excellent government under excellent leadership. We can't fail and we won't fail.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is skipping out, because I have a few comments about his China trip that I want to bring to his attention. He doesn't seem to be aware of it. I see he's being helped out by the government Whip.

I've appreciated the efforts of the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) over the years. He has a distinguished career of public service and I admire him greatly for it. I admire him mostly, of course, for his longevity. Not only need he be proud of the fact that he survived as one of the corporal's guard after 1972, but also we were greatly surprised ourselves. But he did a good job there, he spoke very little, knowing when to speak, and when he did speak he said very little. That is no detraction from his public service, because as a constituency man, Mr. Speaker, I understand he's second to none. Of course, no one else in the last several years has had a chance in that constituency; but we always live in hope.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all, or most, hon. members are aware this afternoon of the grave news from Ottawa, that the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, has stated that if there's any mortgage relief to Canadians, it will be directly related to how much taxation from oil and gas is received in Ottawa. I say "grave and solemn," because all Canadians can now expect the federal government to declare war on the west. It is nothing short of federal blackmail to those of us in western Canada. Members on all sides of the House in all legislatures in western Canada....

Mr. Speaker, most of us who have been here all our lives, and those who are new Canadians and new citizens in western Canada, have endeavoured to be good Canadians and fulfil the tremendous promise of Canada as a federal country. The statements by MacEachen — and we must assume they are the statements of the government of Canada — do nothing to cement the cause of federalism, do nothing to encourage western Canada to participate equally and fully in this great experiment. We of the NDP feel that the comments by the federal Minister of Finance have set Canada back many years, and we are still hoping that before the day is out the Prime Minister will retract the remarks and apologize for them.

The hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways stated in his comments..... We always get the grand tour of the previous election — 1975. I suppose that busy ministers don't have time to research new material for their speeches; they're busy building bridges and highways and parking lots.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. LAUK: Blacktopping Stanley Park and what have you.

He hasn't got much time to research new material. He said — and, of course, we haven't heard this before, have we? — "When we took office in 1976 the cookie jar was full." You've heard that before, haven't you? All those in the public galleries raise your hands if you haven't heard that before. You see?

I'm sorry, he said when the NDP took office in 1972 the cookie jar was full. And it's true: we found nothing but cookies. I think he used the right word, because we found out that the books were cooked. We know that the previous Social Credit administration had been hiding losses on B.C. Rail. We had a statement from the accounting association to that effect. We tabled the documents. There was no possibility of a defence to that serious charge. They stood convicted of cooking the books. There was the old story. The previous Social Credit administration had three sets of books: one set that they revealed to the public, one set they expected people to find, and then the real set.

We found that the old traditions still weren't dead. In 1976 the new Social Credit administration took office, and book-cooking went on. They went through all kinds of elaborate procedures to cook up a phony deficit that never existed. I see the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) patting his desk in approval. He has readily admitted as a result of his approval of my remarks that a phony deficit was created by the former administration. I thank him for that kind support.

HON. MR. McGEER: One more year and we would have been right down through the bottom.

[ Page 1573 ]

MR. LAUK: Listen, one more week and you're going to go through the bottom.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's continue with orderly debate.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways was telling us about how many.... This always amuses me. There is nothing more irrelevant. I've heard statistics — and both sides of the House use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than enlightenment — but the most amusing use of statistics is the one telling us about how many businesses have been registered into companies or partnerships. What totally irrelevant nonsense! Any lawyer on the floor of the House, and most people in business, know that you can incorporate five or six companies just as dummy corporations. I've heard that the other side have a great many of those. But the real test is going concerns, the kind of business operation that makes jobs and creates wealth. To talk about registration of companies is utter nonsense. When one looks at receiverships and bankruptcies, to quote the statistic of registrations and incorporations is as ridiculous as telling us that more people are getting married today than ever before. The problem is that 50 percent of them end up in divorce. Sad but true. And looking at the companies that were registered in the last four or five years, one must look at bankruptcy figures as well: the highest in the history of the province, and at times in British Columbia the highest bankruptcy and receivership rate in the country, during the administration of this government.

The minister also made a comment about revenue-sharing, and I'm glad that the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is here to hear my remarks. They said that this current administration instituted revenue-sharing with the municipalities. The other day the Premier said that they had entered into an agreement with Japan to go into frame construction that would increase the demand in Japan for B.C. lumber. Neither statement is true. They're not consistent with the facts. Revenue-sharing was the bold and courageous plan created by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I can forgive all the new members in the House for not knowing that, because it wasn't well reported. It should have been. It should have been on the front page, screaming headlines for years: "New Bold Move — Revenue-Sharing." The revenue that was created to share with municipalities is the Crown corporation now being used by that side of the House to create surpluses in their budgets — the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Both were the bold moves made by the NDP administration that is steadfastly ignored in the speeches of the hon. members opposite, indeed misleading the House — inadvertently of course when it comes to new members — with respect to its origin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to ask the hon. member if he's imputing any improper motive to any member of this House.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not imputing any improper motive. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having me clarify that. It's very important.

The second point made by the Premier in a speech earlier in the session, I think, was that frame construction was negotiated and agreed to by this administration with Japan.

Well, I have a file that thick of the negotiations. I have the completed contract with the signatures of myself, the federal minister and the officials in Japan, signed in 1974. This was negotiated through the Council of Forest Industries and the two levels of government — the senior and provincial — in 1974. Now why would he say something like that? I was hoping the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) would be here to answer some of those questions. But I suppose he's now planning a new China trip.

I got the newsletter from the Ministry of Economic Development — and I read it with great interest — that the minister was in China, and the only figure we have for the cost to the taxpayer of the China trip was the air fare, I am told, and that was $40,000. I didn't know that they bought the plane, but we don't know the total cost of the trip to China. The message we got back, after spending $40,000 of the taxpayers' money for air fare, and countless thousands of dollars for hotels, rice, steambaths, jogging, and whatever else they do in China, the solemn message from the Ministry of Economic Development's newsletter is: "The Chinese market is vast." [Laughter.] And let me be fair. He added: "It's going to be tough competition." Well, for $40,000, why didn't he send a letter, and get a reply saying the Chinese market is vast and toughly competitive? This is characteristic of this government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did I hear that — from Fred Flintstone? Oh, I have a note here: "Barney Rubble is waiting in the car." [Laughter. ]

Mr. Speaker, this is characteristic of this government: to spend, to waste, to spill the taxpayers' money on boondoggle trips for its ministers. If there's one thing that's good about having such a bare majority for the government, it is that the Whips can keep their members in the House and stop them from flying over to China and Japan on non-meetings with no business conducted whatsoever and bringing back silly reports like that at great cost to the taxpayer.

I want to talk about the budget, about how disappointed I am in the budget. A tremendous amount of money is being accumulated by the government from the taxpayers, and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and other ministers have said: "You don't get money in government from any outside source other than the taxpayers." I suppose many people wonder why politicians often recite that profundity. One of the reasons is that politicians so often are the only ones who forget it, particularly the government. How can they argue for increased revenue from the taxpayers' pockets and say that's a stimulation to the economy, as has been argued?

One of the very grave problems in the city of Vancouver — a subject of much newspaper comment in the last several days, but a long-term problem directly contributed to by the inept, narrow-minded and short-sighted policies of the Social Credit administration — is the critical, emergency housing shortage in the city of Vancouver. We now have confirmed reports that there are people who cannot find any shelter whatsoever in the city of Vancouver and in the lower mainland area. The Ministry of Human Resources reports that there are people in the streets; that they have people in motels and in emergency shelter situations, costing the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars because of a tremendous housing shortage.

[ Page 1574 ]

We warned the government four years ago; we warned the government two years ago. We warned the government last year and we are warning the government today, even though it's too late in the short term to solve this emergency problem. We warned them that they were being "penny wise and pound foolish." We warned them that they were selling the Housing Corporation of British Columbia prematurely; that they should have massive housing construction plans on the part of the government because one day they would have to meet the crisis that is now sitting on their laps. But for the sake of balancing the budget — in 1976, in 1977 — they forwent the long-term plan that this government, this administration, the NDP, would always take into consideration. We never made short-term plans — always long term, because we don't govern from year to year. Social Credit governs from year to year, and that's why we have the horrendous housing shortage and the horrendous problems we are now facing. They sold off those corporations and left it to the free market system.

I wonder if anyone recalls the statement of the Minister of Finance, as he is now, in 1978, when his government sold the Housing Corporation of B.C. He said: "The need for affordable housing is no longer critical. The Housing Corporation of British Columbia, although healthy financially" — no wonder it was healthy financially; it was an NDP Crown corporation — "is superfluous to our needs."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. LAUK: Marie Antoinette — the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and now Minister of Finance, the former Conservative member. He indicated that Social Credit policy was to leave housing to private developers. Those were his comments in 1978. We warned him then, Mr. Speaker. We said: "You're wrong! Housing may be in good supply now, for the short term, but we caution: don't burn your bridges; always have available the tools a government needs to meet emergencies; always have available a program for housing construction." The free market system for housing construction has never been in place. It doesn't work that way in Canada; it never has. The pious, simplistic statements about the free enterprise system are just avoiding the truth and not addressing the problem. They're doctrinaire. They come out with jargon and dialectic.

There are many more causes of the housing shortage, including interest rates. No rent controls in an urban area will cause housing shortages, as will the lack of a federal program to provide financial incentives to professionals and small business people in investing in housing construction. By the way, those kinds of incentives are an interference with the free market system.

I notice the hon. member for Vancouver South shake his head. I don't know whether that's a mark of some exhaustion on his part or whether he was listening to my speech. But I think he shook his head because he's a doctrinaire free enterprise capitalist, a conservative right-winger, a young man who has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the eighteenth century. He's a feudal Tory. Feudal Toryism is even outlawed by the constitution of the United States. But it shows you what a great country we have that we allow feudal Tories to sit in the Legislature of the province of British Columbia.

A housing crisis: rents are going beyond reach. Inflation and interest rates are causing fear and chaos within our society, and the hon. member for Vancouver South, frothing at the mouth, says: "What about the Waffle Manifesto?" That's what I call addressing serious problems.

Now government intervention. I expect the Minister of Science.... We call him Mr. Science on this side of the House. Do you remember that old radio program? "Golly gee, Mr. Science, how does the cork float to the top?" Well, Mr. Science is content, because of his eternal background in academia, to constantly endeavour to find out how many elephants dance on the head of a pin. While all about him is crumbling, while the major problems which should be of concern to the provincial administration go wanting a solution, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is content to play with his scientific toys.

Private investment should be encouraged in housing, but it has to be encouraged by government intervention to supply the incentive through MURBs and other programs. But in addition, Mr. Speaker, the NDP call for a massive government housing construction program. You cannot have success just having one without the other; both are needed — a mixed economy, where the government and private industry work together to solve a serious problem, because they all belong in the community of Canada and the community of British Columbia.

There's no point saying: "Well, we gave you $200 million." You don't throw money after a problem. You used to accuse us of that in the Human Resources ministry. You can't solve human problems by throwing money at them. But that's exactly what you've done with the critical social problem of housing. You've thrown money at it and you expect it to go away. It won't go away. You've got to have a plan, you've got to have an economic plan, and you don't. You're involved in and committed to a philosophy of chaos. What is better proof of that, Mr. Speaker, than the fact that the $200 million is oversubscribed? It has done little or nothing to solve the housing shortage, and it has cut out the people that really need it.

You must increase available housing, but you can't do it just by these kinds of programs written on the back of an envelope. You've got to think about them. You can't say on the weekend: "I'm going to design a gem, like B.C. Place or the Annacis Island bridge, or a $200 million mortgage program, so I can take the heat off us politically. You know, we've been reeling from one scandal to written the other, falling off the walls, and what we need now is for the public to be distracted by a fantastic new program." So they wrote it off on the back of an envelope. They phoned the chief of the credit unions and he said, "What? Oh, you agree," and he hung up the phone and then he announced the program. That's not good enough for this level of government, for any level of government. It's a very high and sacred public trust, and you can't treat it only in a partisan way, as the government has done in the last several months.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways asks: "Why are you always so negative? Why are you carping? Why are you always destructive? Give us your programs. Give us your alternatives." But three and half years of the Barrett administration, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself. The programs were there. We had the economic development projects, we had the Housing Corporation, we created the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and if that's not enough, we had on the planning board, the B.C. savings and loan corporation, a Crown corporation working together with credit

[ Page 1575 ]

unions, which would have supplied the kind of money at reasonable interest rates that ordinary citizens of the province could use to have house ownership. You want positive programs; we've been giving them to you for years. You haven't listened because you're doctrinaire right-wing capitalists and you won't listen to reasonable democratic talk on this side of the House. You won't listen to the common, general will of the people. You are deaf to the general will of the people because of your doctrinaire commitment to an ideology that is an alien ideology in a democratic system. I say that the government must take much more seriously this problem, and address it seriously.

I have a comment or two on education. I'm glad the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) ... was here. Have you got a magician on the other side? I just looked up.... Is he under the table? Well, Mr. Speaker, there was great hope in the public education system when there was a change of ministry. Oh, there he is, and he's right where he should be, taking his instructions, because if there was ever an example of a person who is a vice-minister, it's the hon. member for Oak Bay.

We had great hope when he was appointed Minister of Education. He did all of the appropriate things — shaking hands and kissing babies. He went around and he talked to the Teachers' Federation and the BCSTA, and he listened carefully, and when he was nodding off to sleep they mistook that as being agreement with some of their complaints. And they got the impression that this minister was listening. When you look at the old minister — and I use that word advisedly — his predecessor (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who spread fear and demoralized the public education system during his tenure of office, is there any wonder that there was a sense of relief, a breath of fresh air, when a new minister of public education was appointed?

That was the reaction. I went and spoke to the officials at community colleges, and I said: "How do you feel about the separation — you being with schools and universities being in another department?" They said: "We're relieved." I pointed out some of the problems of having one part of the post-secondary system in one branch and another part in another branch, and they said: "Don't bother us with details; we're rid of McGeer."

So there was great hope. Expectations rose. Then, on the black day that the budget was delivered, we found that the minister is the Wizard of Oz. Instead of that great demigod figure that we thought would arrive and bring justice to schools in this province, we looked behind the screen and there was a little fellow, with someone else pulling the levers.

Mr. Speaker, the budget does not reflect the great hope that the minister gave us when he was first appointed to that high office. It's clear that the minister has no clout in the Treasury Board. It's clear that he has no clout in cabinet. Schools in this province are going to come off second best to an elitist, technocratic scientist who sits in an antiseptic room by himself. He has no sense of community, you know. What he really wants for all of us is to sit alone, separately, in white, antiseptic rooms, ordering our groceries through computers and television sets, getting our education by remote control and — this is his great heaven that he dreams of — never having to come into contact with another human being.

The Open Learning Institute is his great dream. All it is is a duplication of correspondence courses, brought up to date by electronics. What's it doing? Is it serving people in isolated areas? Is it so Joe Matovich or Slobovnik or whoever it is, up north on his trapline, can get a degree in brain surgery? Did it help those people, Mr. Speaker? No. They still don't have access to education, because the Open Learning Institute is a duplication of the existing community college system. Why, in the Okanagan they opened up a counselling service for the Open Learning Institute. This isn't a joke; they're costing us millions of dollars, this man's fantasies. They opened up a little office for counsellors to counsel people who may want the services of the Open Learning Institute. Down the block were counsellors in the Okanagan Community College. Who is kidding whom? It's empire building of the worst possible order, and he stands condemned for it.

Schools have suffered under the current division of the education pie in this budget. That's sad, and I'm certainly going to raise that in detail with the hon. Minister of Education during his estimates. There are other messages that I'm going to deal with in his estimates that are worthy of note at this time.

School districts across the province are fed up with centralization. They're fed up with having to go through 57 steps to get the most minor construction programs and reconstruction programs approved by a ministry that is bogged down in a vat of molasses — the molasses of bureaucracy. Various branches and departments of that minister's ministry contradict each other and send paper in a cyclical fashion, back and forth from branch to branch, delaying the real needs of communities that want new school construction, that want improvements in their areas. The secretary-treasurers of school boards across this province speak of one accord in condemnation of that kind of red tape and bureaucracy. By the performance, so far, of the Minister of Education, I can give them little comfort that any changes will occur.

Another big cry is that there is nothing new. We've argued this on the floor of the House for years. The homeowner is being burdened by high interest rates. He's being burdened by the heavy costs of maintenance. He's being burdened by the costs of his mortgage and all kinds of other costs to keep his house. People who already own homes are going to have to move and are going to be foreclosed. The straw that breaks the camel's back is the increased burden of homeowner taxation at the local level, because of the intransigent attitude on the part of this government — and the inability of this new minister to change it — that places more and more the burden of education costs on homeowners in local school districts.

Centralization has led to all kinds of problems. I would urge the minister to look upon his department not as an authority that rules and overrules projects from local communities, but as a resource, as a support system for local ideas and regional control over education. Don't be worried about this paternalistic attitude that seems to be held by many that control of education should be centralized. No, there are a great many areas that should be controlled and directed at the local level because they are the closest to the people and the needs for education

An example of a tremendous problem that the minister has that he hasn't solved — the solutions are easy — is the centralization of the provincial scholarship program, which places an impossible burden on vocational students who have to compete with academic students. The ministry has taken away local control over those provincial scholarships. Of course, I will have more to say to the minister on that.

[ Page 1576 ]

All of these problems have been on the minister's desk. I know what the former minister's answer is. I say, like the college staff, at least I can have the new minister's ear. I know that the old minister has shut off anything other than pure elitism; he does not believe in, nor is he committed to, mass public education. He believes that is distasteful. He believes it will somehow contaminate him in his ivory tower. But this side of the House is fully and completely committed to mass public education as being the only base and the only hope for survival of the democratic system. There should be local development of some curriculum areas.

What has the minister said about these problems? He said: "Well, I don't want to deal with it now; I'm having an inquiry in the fall." I was sitting in this House for five years listening to the former minister giving us all the answers. Now we've got the new minister saying: "Next fall I'm going to go out and find the question." What happens then? He holds a tour around the province; he hears briefs; he sits on the throne; he considers all the evidence. And then he's replaced by another minister, who will then say: "I'm sorry, I can't solve these problems; I've got to wait until next fall when I'm going to hold an inquiry." That's nonsense! The minister has had enough time to familiarize himself with the major problems in schools. He should be providing solutions now. He should not be abdicating that responsibility by giving some weak excuse that he needs public input. Public input should be continuous year-round and not designated to a particular time in the year when the minister makes his royal tour. The office door should be open all the time; the information should be flowing in. He should know now what to do. Certainly if he doesn't know he should go down the corridor and ask the former Minister of Education, because we have stacks and stacks of the former minister's speeches about what should be done. The solution, from his point of view, which I'm sure he will urge upon you....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did you want something? Your heart? Mr. Speaker, there's something wrong with the minister's heart. I knew that would get his attention. It's the oldest joke in the world, and it always works.

I was going to say that if you walked down the corridor and asked the former minister for his solution to the problems facing schools, he would be glad to tell you. He's always available to provide his views. He's never available to listen, but he's always available to provide his views. He'll suggest, first of all, that you close down the whole public school system and send everybody to private schools. That's the first solution. Because public schools are distasteful. They give the lower class the idea that they have the right to succeed, that they have the right to feel equal, the right to participate equally in our society. You know how distasteful that is to him. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown." The only disappointing thing about having the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) removed from public schools is that I was all prepared to kick the stuffing out of him during this session. Now I've got to attack him on his turf: universities, science and technology. But I always like meeting every challenge.

I have a brief comment, Mr. Speaker, on children's rights before I take my seat. In the past year, throughout the world, the United Nations declared the year of children's rights. In this province I was bitterly.... Oh, I wouldn't say "bitterly" — that's a strong word, because that would mean my expectations of this government were very high, and they weren't. But I had hoped for something substantive to come from the government with respect to the rights of children. They must surely understand the crying need in our society to treat children with equality — not hand them medallions, not do another PR program which shows contempt for them but create a situation of equality in our province. Give them respect by saying, "Equality before the law," and write it into the law; "Equality in education," and build it in. Have equal respect and support for their needs in society. Children have fewer rights and less power in our society than any other minority group. We do not provide that structure in our society. They ask only for equal respect and equal treatment. What they got was an abuse of the worst order. I almost felt compelled to phone the Zenith number and report the former minister for the efforts that she made in showing disrespect for children by her tinseled, partisan, political PR trip.

Now I understand, Mr. Speaker, that she is contrite about that. She admits she made a mistake — same way with the police force. She now wants to introduce a bill on children's rights. I'm going to give her the opportunity to support a bill. Later in the session I hope to reintroduce, for the fourth year running, an act for the rights of children for the province of British Columbia, and I do hope the minister will do something other than send me a free medallion commemorating the year.

The challenge, as I say, was unmet by the government. What is needed in this province is a childrens' rights act, and a Ministry of Children's Services that will coordinate the services to children from each department — not a separate ministry dealing only with services to children, but a coordinating ministry, such as the one in Saskatchewan and in other provinces, which encourages cooperation between the various departments of government that provide services to children. It is long overdue. I know my time is up. I wanted to speak more on that subject, and I hope that the government, when my bill is introduced, will call that bill and we'll all speak on it and we'll all have a chance to vote.

Before I sit down.... I know the Premier is disappointed — I haven't produced it yet, but from recent press announcements throughout the city of Vancouver, we've heard that people are in the streets. They can't pay high rents. Rents are going up and there is "virtually no rent control in the West End." I want to point out that on December 10, 1975, an ad appeared in the Vancouver Sun, and it said: "Social Credit will not abolish rent controls. Bill Bennett."

I know I've raised this matter before. But I know that the Premier will be disappointed if I don't once more draw it to his attention and remind him that he has the chance now to redress the wrongs that his administration has perpetrated upon tenants and reinstitute full rent control.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to all of those words of congratulations which have come from all sides of the House to our new Deputy Speaker. Also, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to welcome to our cabinet our four new cabinet responsibilities, and especially to our new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), which gives a better balance to the cabinet. Having another member of the female sex on board is very nice. I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

[ Page 1577 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I really mean that, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

May I just say it's been a very sober day in the House in spite of the fact that the member for Vancouver Centre — who is just leaving the House — had tried to make it, rather, one of levity. It's a very sober day in our House, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we will reflect on this day as being a very important one in our Legislature. Members on all sides of the House, I believe, will reflect on that in the time to come.

I want to just make some statements in response to the last statement that was made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I think it is really directed at all members on that side of the House who have tried to put an aura, if you like, around the handling of the Human Resources ministry as one that, as in his words, has been a tinsel in public relations, and so on. I would like to just share with you, before I start my address on the budget, some words which don't come from members of the opposition, but from members of the social workers association. It is from the "Social Work Perspectives" edition of fall, 1979. This is an editorial in the official organ of the British Columbia social workers' association. The editor says:

"Would it be overstating the case to say that we are witnessing in British Columbia a profound change in the way that our government views social welfare programs? I am referring, of course, to the recent public information initiatives of the Ministry of Human Resources, via the media, and the printing of attractive new brochures and posters. Save for a few 'shoestring budget' endeavours by the Vancouver Resources Board and some other resource boards in the past, exclusively in the print media, I believe, the current campaign to encourage the populace to better understand the ministry's helping services is unprecedented."

They go on to say:

"The television and newspaper ads and the brochures are intelligently and sensitively done. Finally, let's give credit to the policymakers at the ministry. From all accounts, the preparation of the media campaign was attended by an active solicitation of input from the field. The end product is obviously the better for this."

I have left out the very complimentary references to the Minister of Human Resources because, you know, modesty would dictate that I shouldn't really refer to that.

However, I would like to say, too, as we are putting things on the record and straightening out some of the misinformation that has come from the socialist side of the House, that also throughout this debate there have been many references to the recent Human Resources Week. I'd just like to have it on the record that I asked the ministry to please let me know, now that the week is over, what the cost of that week was to the citizens of British Columbia. I'd tell you what the benefits were — and I would like to really enlarge on that; I think perhaps I will later in my address to this budget speech — but I may just say that the cost of the campaign itself for 200 offices, which in total spend just under $700 million in a 12-month period and which have 5,000 employees, in total for that one week to share the message that we wish to help our fellow British Columbians and that we have both the expertise and the will to help, was $23,260.1 wonder if we could have that $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 figure put to rest, which has been perpetrated by the socialist side of the House time and time again. They did not ask whether or not we could provide the figures; they simply put a total on them and made that erroneous figure go round and round the province. They are masters of misinformation and innuendo, and they make the figures stick.

But may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the week the Ministry of Human Resources has just put forth, that effort in this past couple of weeks, has shared with the people of British Columbia the services of our ministry. I'd like to put it on the record right now that I'm extremely proud of what my ministry does, and I'm extremely proud of the work they have accomplished.

I'll say this. You can bring out every story you want that is a failure.... And I want to speak in a few moments, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in reply to remarks that were made by two members of this House in reference to specific cases — the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I'm going to tell you that there may be, because of human failure, failures within the ministry. They are not creating human failure. They are trying to fix up some of the ills of human nature that come to them. They're stretcher-bearers, if you like, after the very tragic circumstances of people's lives are brought to them.

I'm going to tell you that there are more success stories coming out of my ministry than the tragedies those people on that side of the House would like to have you believe, Mr. Speaker. I'll put the record of that Human Resources ministry up against the record of any in this country. I can give you quotations, Mr. Speaker, from people who have written from all over this continent and all over the world, who come to this ministry, to this government, because we are known to have the most forward, aggressive and successful programs in Human Resources of any organization in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I note the time. I have so much to share with you about my ministry. I wonder if I could please move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, and continue my address tomorrow.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.