[ Page 1579 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Administration of justice.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1579

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Administration of justice. Mr. Leggatt –– 1580

Goldstream River dam. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1581

Stikine-Iskut project. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1581

Radioactive wastes. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1581

Goldstream River dam. Mr. King –– 1581

Administration of justice. Mr. Lauk –– 1581

Housing shortage. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1582

Ministerial statement

Maplewood Poultry.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1582

Mrs. Wallace –– 1582

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1583

Mr. Barnes –– 1586

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1591

Mr. Lockstead –– 1594

Mr. Brummet –– 1598

Appendix –– 1602

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the House to welcome today a former research assistant with the CCF and later the New Democratic Party, Mr. John Wood.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, there are members of the British Columbia Library Trustees Association in the buildings today visiting Victoria, including Mr. Blair, Mr. Parker and Mrs. Stocks. I'd like to have the House welcome them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the galleries today the chairman of the Powell River Regional Board, Mr. Len Emmonds, and the secretary-treasurer for the same board, Mr. Glen Calvert. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have, from the Columbia River constituency, Mr. Tracy Riches of Invermere and Mr. Greg McAllister of Radium Hot Springs. I'd like to ask members to welcome them.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a group of students from the Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay, sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. They are accompanied by their teachers, Betty Maddison and Delbert Doll. I might add that Delbert Doll was the Social Credit candidate in the constituency of Comox in the last election. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to extend our welcome to the class and the teachers, particularly Delbert Doll — and to say we all wish he was here.

MRS. WALLACE: In the precincts today there are some 80 young people, 40 of whom are from Mt. Prevost Junior Secondary School in the Cowichan Valley and 40 of whom are their guests from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Some of them will be in the gallery later today, together with the Mt. Prevost teacher, Mr. Barry Birch. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is Mr. Rick Jensen from Cranbrook. Rick is the recent recipient of a Year of the Child Award and is president of the Big Brothers organization of British Columbia. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming one of my constituents, Victoria C. Biggen, who used to work with a former member of this House, Lyle Telford.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and, I think, all members of this House, I would like to welcome members of the Municipal Finance Authority, one or two of whom are in the gallery now; others will be in the gallery through the course of the afternoon and evening. This is the occasion of their semi-annual meeting. It is of interest that this marks the tenth anniversary of the establishment by this Legislature of that very unique and, I might add, very successful local government organization which cares for the financing of capital requirements around the province. I think it would be appropriate to pay tribute to members of the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Today the minister paid tribute to the very special place that the members of this House have, and the special place that we share on behalf of the people of British Columbia. May I say that we are able to carry out our responsibilities a little more easily — in fact, a lot more easy, Mr. Speaker — because of the great people who work with us in the public service. One of the most outstanding people in our public service has been my executive secretary, about whom I can say to you, Mr. Speaker…. I would not have been able to have lived through those first four years from 1975 until this year had it not been for her outstanding service. I would like to say to those of the House that Mrs. Shandley has had to be away for a short time because of illness, but I am happy to tell you that we can welcome her back. She is in the gallery today — Mrs. Phillis Shandley, with her friend Mrs. Agnes Bentley.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like you and all the House to join with me today to welcome a special group from the Esquimalt senior high school. This group is a special seminar — social studies group number 11, commonly called the GCC. This is a special gifted, creative and committed group that are doing a pilot project program in the Greater Victoria school district. This is being held in the Esquimalt Senior Secondary School as a special project, and I ask everyone to welcome them here.

MR. LAUK: From the core of the greatest city in Canada, Mr. Speaker, two visitors today in the gallery are Ms. Janet Miller and Mr. Jim Cruikshank. Could we welcome them, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting us today from the floodplain is a former newsman, a now radio personality, Mr. Ron Gadsby. Please make him welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As you know, I don't get the opportunity very often to introduce constituents of mine from the great South Peace River riding, because they're all so busy producing the energy requirements of the province. But today in the gallery are two citizens of our province who have spent many years in the great Peace River country and are now constituents of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I would like the House to join with me in making welcome Dr. and Mrs. Robert Esau.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my colleague for Vancouver Centre yesterday, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, following what the hon. member said in terms of studying the statement of the

[ Page 1580 ]

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the documents referred to therein, I wish to make the following statement on behalf of the official opposition.

My statement is not in reference to the integrity of the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Richard Vogel, but relates to grave considerations as to the administration of justice in this province under the Attorney-General — in other words, the integrity of the system, not the individuals, and whether even-handed justice in accordance with law has prevailed in the instances cited in the Attorney-General's statement.

As to case number one referred to by the Attorney General, the case of Mr. Michael Moran, the serious question is: why did the Crown drop the charge of refusing to take the breathalyser test which had been laid against the accused? In light of evidence revealed in the transcript of the hearing that did proceed, the statement of the RCMP officers, individual witnesses and the physical evidence of alcohol, an independent inquiry is clearly required as to whether the dropping of this charge involved special considerations not available to others who refuse to take the breathalyser test in like circumstances.

As to case number two, Mr. Speaker, the case of Andrew Rigg, the question which should be the subject of independent judicial inquiry is: did this accused receive consideration not generally available to persons facing this charge, by reason of his case receiving attention in the Attorney General's ministry in Victoria — first with respect to the charge being stayed and secondly with respect to a Crown appeal?

The second question is whether a routine case of this kind should not be appealed against the direct advice of both regional Crown counsel and the associate deputy minister for criminal law.

The third case referred to raises questions not of failure to subpoena a witness, as this became a moot question when a guilty plea was later tendered, but rather whether the Attorney-General directly, or through his agent, attempted to prevent the calling of a witness in a case where charges had been laid. If this is so, and so found by inquiry, it would constitute an obstruction of justice.

The questions here raised have not really been addressed, let alone clarified, in the statement made yesterday by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, rather than, as reported, deciding to send copies of interviews he conducted to the federal Communications minister Francis Fox, who has licensing power over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, should table those copies with this House, and refrain from steps which seem to be intimidatory with respect to a news agency, and allow any personal questions of reputation to be decided in the ordinary way in the courts of law. Clearly these grave matters cannot be decided in the Ministry of the Attorney-General itself, but must be the subject of an independent judicial inquiry — even though the Premier is wagging his head back and forth — which will deal with the matters here raised, most of which would not be relevant in a private lawsuit.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Yesterday the Attorney-General was quoted as saying that he would send copies of interviews he conducted with those connected with the three cases that were discussed yesterday to the federal Communications minister and to the CRTC. Can the minister advise, first of all, if he was being accurately quoted? If he was, could he also advise whether the Minister of Communications of Canada or the CRTC will have information available to them that is not available to other members of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General may wish to answer the question. In question period it is irregular to ask if news reports are factual.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was simply going to say that I thought the member was in his place yesterday when I made my statement. If he wasn't, I would be happy to send him a copy of the Blues.

MR. LEGGATT: Perhaps the minister could clarify it, because I wasn't clear on his answer. The minister indicated in his statement that the statement he gave to the House would be forwarded to the Minister of Communications and to the CRTC. Could the minister now clarify whether anything else will be forwarded to those two bodies?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister now clarify for members of the House whether any of the interviews and statements taken by either himself or his assistant Mr. John Hall were taken under oath, in terms of the report that he gave to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: None were, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister clarify for the House, in the matter of the Rigg case — the case in which his predecessor described the deputy minister as having exercised an "error of judgment" — now that he's had........

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Could you repeat that?

MR. LEGGATT: I'll repeat it if the minister didn't hear me. The minister's predecessor described the matter of the Rigg case: the Deputy Attorney-General had exercised an "error of judgment" in that particular case; or a "mistake of judgment," I think were the words, to be more accurate to the minister's predecessor. Now that the Attorney-General has had access to further inquiries in the matter, will he still confirm that it was an error of judgment on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General to have intervened in the Rigg case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the words "error in judgment" in Mr. Donald's letter, as I understand them — I have discussed it with him — are his conclusion. I assume the same with respect to the comments made by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

MR. LEGGATT: In respect of the Mickey Moran case, the clear indication from the report of the Attorney-General yesterday was that there was no attempt by the deputy minister to intervene or interfere in that particular case. However, the direction not to continue with an appeal came from the

[ Page 1581 ]

associate deputy minister. I wonder if the minister could clarify for the House whether any inquiry was dealt with, or any statements were taken, as regard conversations between the associate deputy minister, Mr. McDiarmid, and the deputy minister, Mr. Vogel, in respect to that particular case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and there were no conversations.

GOLDSTREAM RIVER DAM

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have some answers to questions put to me by members earlier in the session. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) asked if the minister was aware whether the fish and wildlife branch of his ministry had requested of the water controller that public hearings be conducted into water licence applications for Noranda Mines on the Goldstream. The answer is that the controller of water rights advises that a public hearing on Noranda Mines' Goldstream applications was not requested by any of the objectors, including the fish and wildlife branch. The current status of the application is that Noranda Mines has been notified by the controller that he has decided a water licence on Goldstream River will be issued to Noranda.

STIKINE-ISKUT PROJECT

The second question came from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who asked about Hydro's objects with regard to the Stikine and the Iskut River: "Has an application been filed by B.C. Hydro for hydropower projects on either of these two sources, and have ministry staff participated with Hydro in the study of fish migration or mountain goat habitat problems on the possible sites of these sources?" The answer is that B.C. Hydro has not filed an application for a water licence on the Iskut or the Stikine Rivers; and yes, Hydro consultants have done most of the work but the Ministry of Environment has consulted the fish and wildlife branch throughout to help design the research project and evaluate the Hydro consultants' work.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES

The third question came from the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall): "In view of the doubts expressed by Dr. David Bates that the commission of which he was head would be unable to fulfil its promise to the Surrey residents that it would study radioactive wastes on the property owned by CRF Holdings in Surrey, can the Minister of Environment advise what other action the government is prepared to take on the problem of radioactive wastes in Surrey?" The answer is that the province has already initiated action to further clarify the intentions of the federal government regarding the disposal of radioactive material, and to encourage the early resolution of the problem. The province has no intention of letting the matter lie idle.

GOLDSTREAM RIVER DAM

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister advise whether he directly received any requests from interveners or interested parties requesting that a public hearing be held incident to the application by Noranda for construction of a hydro project on the Goldstream River?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I did not personally receive any request, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LAUK: To the Attorney-General. In the recent review and collation of materials, did John Hall take statements from Bruce Donald, Brian Weddell or Dick Vogel, or all three?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Hall hasn't informed me from whom he took statements.

MR. LAUK: In any of the interviews conducted by either the Attorney-General or Mr. Hall, is there a complete transcript of those statements or a statement given by Mr. Vogel or any other witnesses?

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

MR. LAUK: Was John McAlpine interviewed by the Attorney-General, his staff or Mr. Hall?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't interview Mr. McAlpine. He may have been interviewed by Mr. Hall.

MR. LAUK: Were there any other police interviewed by Mr. Hall, the Attorney-General or his staff, other than those mentioned in his report to the House of yesterday?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: None of which I am aware, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Of those police interviewed, mentioned in the Attorney-General's report to the House.... Is there a transcript of those statements?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not of the interview I had with the police officers, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that there is a recording of the interview conducted by Mr. Hall.

MR. LAUK: Yesterday, in the report to the House, the Attorney-General stated, in some of the questions that were involved, that an appeal is launched, usually by the Crown from a conviction or by the defence on an acquittal, on the grounds that there is a legal issue requiring further clarification. I think the Attorney-General said "fundamental legal issue." In practice, there are three criteria for launching an appeal from acquittal or conviction: (1) new direction taken in the course of the law, (2) a fundamental legal issue requiring clarification, and (3) a conviction or acquittal being based on no evidence, that is to say a perverse verdict, as stated in the Criminal Code.

Is it now the policy of the Attorney-General's department, after his statement yesterday, to give direction to all prosecutors and defence counsel that an appeal will not lie on the grounds of a perverse verdict?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, has the Attorney-

[ Page 1582 ]

General, now that he has notified the House that there are transcripts of the interviews, now made a decision to send copies of those transcripts of the interviews with related material and his full statement to the CRTC regulatory body? Do you intend to send them? Have you made arrangements to send transcripts to them?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Which is your question?

MR. BARRETT: Has the minister now made a decision to send copies of transcripts of interviews to the CRTC?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I haven't made that decision, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, in his statement to the House yesterday the Attorney-General indicated that in the King-Farris case Mr. Vogel was giving a lawyer's opinion in regard to any comments surrounding the calling or non-calling of John Farris as a witness in that case. During the inquiry, or from the report that he received from his assistant, was he able to determine why a lawyers opinion was necessary in that particular case? Why was it necessary for his office to be called in to render a lawyer's opinion around the calling of a witness in a matter to be dealt with normally by Crown counsel?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, he wasn't giving a lawyer's opinion to Crown counsel; that arose during a discussion with two police officers.

HOUSING SHORTAGE

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Lack of housing, in particular rental accommodation in the lower mainland and many other small communities in the province, has reached crisis proportions to the extent that provincial and federal government agencies are not able to assist even on an emergency basis. Has the government decided to establish an emergency housing program to meet the expected crisis this spring?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have.

MR. GABELMANN: Another question, Mr. Speaker. B.C. Is the only province in Canada that does not have a Crown housing corporation, and B.C. has the worst housing shortage in North America. Has the minister decided to re-establish the Crown housing corporation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we already have a Crown housing corporation in the province.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he intends the housing corporation, which he claims exists and is active in this province, to further its activities or to do something.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do what?

MR. GABELMANN: Another question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this shareable money available through CMHC under the National Housing Act and in view of the very positive results that the program has shown in seniors' housing, has the government decided to take advantage of further cost-sharing with the federal government and develop low-income and co-op housing in B.C. on a broader scale, in the way that it has been done for seniors?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do have some difficulties with the national government with funding the level of need we have for senior citizens' housing in British Columbia. In March 1979 we signed the global funding agreement with the national government wherein we clearly, defined our roles. We will be the administrative and the operating arm for senior citizens' housing in the province.

When it comes to cooperative housing, it's a matter that is clearly defined as a role of the national government. In 1979 five projects were established on cooperative housing in British Columbia with 341 units. I guess the role that will be played and how significant it will be as far as cooperative housing is concerned in 1980 will be determined by the kind of dollars that are allocated by the national government as the initiator and the administrator in the operation of cooperative housing in this province.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. You will recall the other day during question period that I advised the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that the matter of Cargill Grain's proposed purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processing Ltd. was under review by this government.

For the benefit of the members of the House I would to like to advise them in regard to this statement that Cargill purchased Panco Poultry from the government over a year ago, and at that time, of course, it was to move production units and a processing plant out of government ownership, because we didn't want to be in the chicken business. However, the support of that purchase was given by the poultry industry in this province, and with that purchase, Panco Poultry, owned by Cargill, at present processes 23 percent of the broiler production and 60 percent of the turkey production in this province. The acquisition of Maplewood Poultry would result in 43 percent of the broilers and 80 percent of turkeys being processed through that one company.

As I stated to the member the other day, I was concerned about the percent which would be held by one processor, and the producers have also expressed their concerns both to me and to Ottawa. Also, Pacific Poultry Producers Co-op have expressed interest in purchasing Maplewood Poultry and have so advised the Foreign Investment Review Agency in Ottawa. Pacific Poultry Producers Pan Ready Ltd. Is a B.C. company and a Canadian company. As a result, in completing our review, although Cargill has operated Panco Poultry Ltd. In a positive manner, it is our position that the acquisition of Maplewood Poultry Ltd. by Cargill Grain would not be in the best interests of the poultry industry in this province. Therefore we have communicated to Ottawa our objection to the sale of Maplewood Poultry to Cargill Grain.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to express my appreciation to the minister for taking this stand. I am certainly pleased that he has finally come around to this conclusion. It

[ Page 1583 ]

is something that has been pressured for by the producers and by myself for some length of time, and I just hope that his application to FIRA, or his protest to FIRA, reaches them in time before they have already made their decision.

Orders of the Day

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is highly irregular for members on either side of the House to be interrupting the proceedings of the House while Orders of the Day are being declared. I trust that I don't have to remind the hon. members about that.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ….

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: I don't believe you indicated to the hon. member the amount of time remaining to her.

MR. SPEAKER: She didn't require me to respond, but I will find it out for her so that the hon. member is satisfied.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to thank the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre for his concern over the time. I appreciate that. I know you are going to stay to hear every word.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue along the line of the budget debate, as we sometimes stray a bit from that subject. I would like to address myself to the budget today. I support this budget because of the great things it's going to do for our fellow British Columbians.

I think there was some reference during the first day, the first few hours that the budget was out, in the press to it being somewhat lucky, or that somehow it came by way of luck or just being in the right place at the right time. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is in the right place at the right time, and I can say this: the people of British Columbia have put us here because they want to be in the right place at the right time with the right government. It is because of the economic initiatives brought in by our Minister of Finance. I want to say to the Minister of Finance.... He was preceeded by an outstanding Minister of Finance, and I am really pleased to see that he is following in the same footsteps of good fiscal management which will bring social good to the people of British Columbia.

You know, as Minister of Human Resources, it would seem that I would refer mostly in my address to the budget to those things which come under my ministry's responsibilities, and I certainly plan to get back to that as I started last night. But first of all I would like to say what this budget means to us in the city of Vancouver. May I just depart a minute from my ministry's responsibilities to say that some of the initiatives are going to change the face of Vancouver dramatically, and the economic opportunities for the people of Vancouver. I am particularly pleased to say that I see the support for the Pacific Rim trade and convention centre as one of the great initiatives of this government, as well as the support for the trade and convention centre for Victoria, which was also announced in this budget, and moneys provided for it.

In terms of our whole Pacific Rim trade potential, half the world's population is served by this great province of British Columbia. In addition to the Pacific Rim trade and convention centre, there's no question that British Columbia Place and the great initiative of Transpo will be a fantastic boon to our city and to our province.

Also contained in the budget are the highlights which give tremendous initiative to the forest industry. When I think about the jobs that will be created by that alone, and how my ministry can use some of those jobs for the benefit of the people on income assistance, I am very, very pleased to see the dollars that are going into the reforestation program and the Forests ministry.

On the Pacific trade and convention centre alone we anticipate about 700 construction jobs. British Columbia Place and the trade and convention centre in Victoria — just think how many jobs they will create.

Then when I look at the other economic initiatives that have been put forward, and I consider for instance the concentration on energy self-sufficiency, I don't know of any other province in this country that has paid tribute to the fact that if we don't get busy and if we don't start to plan our energy initiatives, as this province has historically done through hydro development.... By the way, those are the same hydro developments and the same two-river policy the socialists across the way said weren't needed at all. We sure know today how much those decisions were needed. Thank goodness the Social Credit government made those decisions.

I can't help but say that our Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), combined with our new Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), through this budget have before us a tremendous plan for economic development which will see so much in our province in terms of hope, initiative and planning for the future such as we have never seen before.

We have heard the doom and gloom from the other side of the House for some two to three weeks, and that's all we ever hear from them. We never hear from the socialist side of the House about the opportunities for the young people such as those who are sitting in the gallery today, for the young people mentioned in the budget speech for whom retraining and educational and vocational opportunities are going to be made available. We never hear of the positive things. I despair for the young people of today who day after day have to sit and listen to the television set telling them about the gloom and doom in this province, and who have to read in the newspapers about the gloom and doom perpetrated by the socialist side of this House. They are the privileged young people of this generation who will lead and who will find a future in this province that is outstanding, the best opportunity that a young person could ever have.

I'd like to see our province, our people, our business community, the people in the churches and even the people in the socialist camp start to talk about the positive things in this country and in this province, because we have more positive things going for us than negative things.

There is a psychology, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to draw your attention to it:if you talk bad times and if you poor-

[ Page 1584 ]

mouth everything that comes down the pike, you will have poor times and you will create poor times. Let me say this to you: free enterprisers and individual enterprisers know that the opportunities in this province are incomparable to any other area of this country. We can talk about the great province of Alberta — and I love the Alberta people. We know they have tremendous potential in their reserves of oil and so on; we appreciate what they have. We are combined with Alberta as being the only growth provinces in this nation in the 1980s. That's our place; that's our time. When we are told that Alberta has potential as well as ourselves, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia's potential is many times more than Alberta's could ever be.

What are we looking at? Again, let me refer to the two ministers who have such tremendous potential and responsibility, but who also have such tremendous foresight for the energy potential of this province. I'm referring to the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications and our hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and all those other things. I think that the resources they are looking after, the resources which they are tapping for our potential, are just out of this or any other world. Let me quote some of the figures. It is estimated that at current consumption — just as spendthrift as we are now, without any concern for the electric light being spent, the amount of water pouring down through the rivers and out to the sea, all of the gas and oil and so on.... This current consumption, I think we all will suggest, is a wasteful type of consumption. Thank goodness the budget addresses itself to conservation measures as well. We have enough gas reserves in this province to last 60 years. We have enough oil reserves for six years — not very good. We have enough coal reserves — with coal conversion opportunities that have never been known by the scientific field as well and as profoundly as they are today — to last for 12,000 years.

Let's tell that to the young people of the province, and say that they are here at the right place at the right time. When they hear all the doom and gloom from the socialist side of the House and when they hear of the precariousness of the world political situation — the word from the OPEC nations, the word from Afghanistan, the concern over the Persian Gulf — let us tell them that here, in this province, they have hope. Let us tell them that in this province we have vision. And let us tell them that in this province they have opportunity, and so do all of those who are older and younger.

It's a great budget. It's a budget of opportunity, Mr. Speaker. And because it is a budget of opportunity, do you know what it does for me as Minister of Human Resources? It says to me: "The opportunities for you as a minister looking after social services are the best that any Minister of Human Resources has ever had." I know that, and because of that I am appreciative of being here at this time.

I want to say this to you. I was in a money-making portfolio for a little while. My colleague from Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who now has the very first total Ministry of Tourism not attached to another ministry, is in a money-making ministry. She has a terrific opportunity, because that ministry provides more jobs for people in Canada and British Columbia than any other area of endeavour. It provides more positions, more employment. But I am in a spending portfolio now, and I have the opportunity to see how important it was that the economy of this province is kept really vibrant and healthy, because I see the demands made on our Ministry of Human Resources.

Let me just say this. We have been told time and time again by members opposite — the left — that we have been an uncaring government. We have been told over and over that we don't care for people. They have sold that line so well. They know very well by figures and by example that it isn't true. But they have sold it so well to the people of British Columbia. They go around this province and tell those outrageous stories about how we don't care for people. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how we compare, in terms of caring for people.

Do you know that in the health services budget alone the expenditure per patient in this province in 1975 was $1,499; in 1980 the expenditure will be $3,370 per patient. That is over double, Mr. Speaker, in that short time since the NDP had the opportunity and the responsibility for providing health services. We've been told there have been cutbacks in local hospital budgets, yet the expenditure per patient in 1975 was $915 when the NDP were in power; in 1980 it was $1,790, again almost double. Some cutback!

Mr. Speaker, do you know that in 1975 the total social services budget looked after 202,196 people? Because we have been able to get some people off income assistance and into a meaningful place, in 1980 that has been reduced to 187,943 people. The expenditure of each of those cases, in 1975, was $1,901, whereas in 1980 the Social Credit administration will spend $3,567 per case. Then, in education, Mr. Speaker, the expenditure per student in 1975 was $944. Compare that to 1980, which is $1,883 per student expenditure on education. Some cutback. Some treatment of people. It's the best treatment that the people of this province have ever had.

I am so pleased to say that my particular ministry has had a 17.4 percent increase, and I want to say that we are going to spend it for services to people in the best way that you have ever seen. I'm not going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how our ministry plans to assist the people who are today on income assistance, and I'd just like to say this to my fellow members of this House: you will all go home to a very comfortable home this evening, you will all have a car to drive, most of those in the gallery will have good food to eat, and most people in British Columbia will appreciate a very good standard of living. There are some in our province who will not have that standard of living. As I have said to my members in my Ministry of Human Resources — those who serve on the front line, the 5,000 social workers, family support workers and child-care workers throughout our province — it is our responsibility to take all of those people who are on income assistance and who are not handicapped and are not there because of some physical or mental disability, and say to them: "We are going to turn around your lives and give you the same opportunities that we enjoy."

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to announce a great and dramatic plan today, but I'm going to tell you, as we begin this decade of the eighties, that this Ministry of Human Resources is going to present a plan to the people of British Columbia. It's not going to be a whole new dramatic program that's going to be a one-shot program — a few months' pilot project. Instead it's going to be a total and complete concentration on those people who should have an opportunity, who have somehow lost their confidence, and who have somehow lost their way. It's going to be the best program, which is going to knit together the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Human Resources to give an exciting program — an exciting and complete plan, if you

[ Page 1585 ]

like, a life plan of opportunity — to the people of our province. We will commit ourselves to doing that.

I think that the members opposite would want to know, especially those who have been particularly.... I'm glad to see that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is in his seat, because yesterday he was very critical of the fact that we had medals and certificates for the Year of the Child. He was very critical of the fact that we had what he, I think, called a "tinsel campaign" for the Year of the Child, and he wanted to see that overcome. Well, let me say this. It was probably the only speech that you could give, Mr. Member. I didn't say it was a good speech, but it was probably the only speech, because the speeches that have come from the other side have been extremely lacking in substance, and have been not at all in the form of good debate in this House, as this House has known it in years past.

Let me just say that in terms of the community awareness which I have hoped to bring to the people of this province, I want the people of this province to understand that there are people in this province who volunteer their help and give of themselves way above the line of duty. And I just want those people who think that the Year of the Child was an exercise in public relations to look at some of the people who received awards and recognition for the first time in their lives. I wonder if the members of the opposition want to argue with a lady who wrote to me after receiving a presentation as follows:

"We would like to thank you for the lovely award you presented to us of the Year of the Child and Family. It's just lovely. By this we know some people are behind us, and that helps. Fostering for almost 15 years now has been truly rewarding, with most of the children looked after...."

I can't read her writing, Mr. Speaker, but it looks like "that J.W. looked after and cared for. We thank you." It is signed by a couple from Cranbrook.

I have letter after letter from people, and I had expression after expression given to me verbally by people who had cared for multi-handicapped children, who had given their lives to help someone else's child — not their own, but someone who for some reason couldn't be cared for in his natural parents' home. They had given their lives up to help them. Some were blind, some were deaf or otherwise physically handicapped, others were completely non-handicapped. If I could bring to you just one expression from any one of those people it would be this: "We wanted to do it and we chose to do it but, you know, it's really nice to be thanked for it." I think that's human nature. And let me say to the members opposite who are so critical of that kind of recognition, I won't apologize for that kind of recognition any time.

I want to say to you that I have been particularly concerned about the statements that have come.... I see that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is not in the House, but I'm sure that he'll read the Blues, because last night I said that I would refer to some statements that he made. I see that the Human Resources critic for the NDP is not in the House, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I hope they will read the Blues, because I would like to make statements on statements that they made when they addressed the budget. Let me say this: every member takes full responsibility for his or her actions in this House. If some of the scurrilous statements that have been made on the other side of the House have not been corrected, it is not a reflection on this side of the House, but is on the head, and is the responsibility, of the member who has made them — and such statements they were by those two members.

Let me just tell you I don't believe that the people of this province, the poor people — and there are poor people, those who are on social assistance, those who are handicapped for some reason or another, those who have gone to jail, those who are now in court because they are charged with the incredible situation of murdering a child.... All of that, Mr. Speaker, was put on the head of the Minister of Human Resources — the reason why so many women are in jail. Why, the member for North Island placed the responsibility on me for the fact that there was a baby who had died in North Island.

They both know full well the confidentiality of the kind of work that we do in the Ministry of Human Resources. If either one of those members thought for a moment that there was something lacking in the Ministry of Human Resources in terms of accountability.... If any member today has the least suspicion that there is something wrong somewhere in this province, that a child does not have full protection, that a mother does not have full protection, that a family does not have full protection, he need only come to me. You do not have to blame me for someone who has gone to jail and has given the reason that he didn't have enough to eat — you don't have to throw that back on the Minister of Human Resources. I know that the people of British Columbia don't believe that. I know that the members who have said it don't believe that. If that were so, there would never have been a jail sentence all the time the NDP were in power; there would never have been, for heaven's sake, a charge of murder; there would never have been anyone who would have gone before a judge and said: "It was because I didn't have enough to eat that I stole that money."

I can't get into the specifics, although the members opposite did; I'm not going to, because I have taken an oath of confidentiality and I won't break that. But let me put it on the record today that if you have a specific case — this is for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and the member for North Island — come to me and I will tell you why. I will tell you the background, and my ministry's involvement, because I trust each member of this House to keep that confidentiality, and I will share with you as much as I can of that particular case.

Let me quote for the record what someone writing in the Sunday Times of London, England said — and I think this is particularly useful for those in this House who will be making statements from time to time about those in our province who are least able to speak for themselves:

"Lately I have begun to notice a very disturbing feature make an insidious but considerable penetration into our highly structured and caring society. Hardly a week goes by now but one reads in the press of yet another social worker being called to account for what rapidly seems to be emerging as the indefensible and hitherto unknown crime of the century, 'failure to avert the course of human nature.' In the name of progress and enlightenment we seem to be sheltering and fostering a quite new and hideous idea of social retribution."

I could go on with this article; it's fairly lengthy. It's by Laurie Nelson who is writing in the Sunday Times of London, England.

Mr. Speaker, our Ministry of Human Resources and our

[ Page 1586 ]

people in the Ministry of Human Resources carry a tremendous load of responsibility. Let me just give you an idea. Do you know that we take an average of 240 children into care each and every month? The total number in care — excluding all of those children who are in care because they are handicapped, because of illness of parents or deaths of parents — for neglect and child abuse alone, excluding all other categories, is 4,740 at this present moment.

Let me say this. Every day, 240 times a month, there is someone in my ministry called upon to make a judgment as to whether or not a child should be taken out of its home or whether it should not. I think it's about time, Mr. Speaker, that we realize that it is because of human frailty that those children are in that position; it is because of the course of human nature. It cannot be blamed on that Port Hardy situation brought out earlier in debate by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). It is about time that we paid tribute to the people who go through tremendous anxiety day after day, wondering if they've done the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that 4,740 times they've done the right thing in the past 12 months.

We have a remarkable budget here. It gives me an opportunity in the next few months to work together with my colleague and the Attorney-General to bring something to British Columbia to help some single parents in this province in the enforcement of maintenance orders. That's going to be done, Mr. Speaker, because it is about time in this province that those who have deserted their wives and their children — and sometimes it's the other way around, but that is not the norm — must not just leave the taxpayer to pick up their responsibilities. We must have a different system. Let me say that that's not because of dollars and cents; that's not to save money for the government, although it probably would. It would put the onus on those deserting parents who go off and let the people of the province of British Columbia bring up their families and pay taxes to help single parents....

Let me say that the greatest cost and the greatest burden is borne by the children of this province who are in that situation and who are torn between the fights over a dollar bill that exist between the two spouses, the mother and the father, when the breakup of the marriage happens. I hope to bring in a whole new program of enforcement of maintenance orders which will see relief for both the wife and the children; they will be taken out of that terrible violent area and that vindictiveness that goes on, which is the fight between a man and a woman over whether or not they sent the cheque. I hope that we can bring that about in this year, and certainly in the first two years of the decade of the eighties. We are committed to that, Mr. Speaker, and I do hope we're going to be able to.

May I conclude my remarks — because I see the light is indicating a very short time — by saying that one of the legacies, and only one, of the Year of the Child and Family was the attack on child abuse in this province. Never before in this province has there been a program which has been so well put together in all areas, in all sections of attack, so well received by the public, and which has resulted so well in actual saving of lives as has our child-abuse program in this province. I'm very proud of the Zenith line, Mr. Speaker. I'm very proud of the staff that has put it together, and I'm very proud of the training program and the child-abuse manual which has had great circulation in this province.

It's a great budget. It allows the Ministry of Human Resources and all the social services in this province to have an extremely great decade in the eighties, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, that was an incredible performance by the Hon. Madam Goldfinger of the great constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain, where you put your own gold in the ground and then pan for it. I think that member could do well no matter what she was doing, because she has the capacity to perform. She should have gone into acting. Just a little while ago that member was talking about the secret police. It was when she was in the opposition and the New Democratic Party was the government, and she did that very well as well. She was broadcasting all over the province about the NDP's clandestine meetings with persons or groups unknown and their plans to overthrow the province.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, could I direct your attention to the interference that I am receiving from that side of the House? I ask those members to please extend the same courtesy to this side of the House that we extend to them when they have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: I would like to suggest that if that member ever decides to go into football, she would make an excellent companion to the former Hamilton Tiger-Cat, Mr. Angelo Mosca. As you will recall, Mr. Mosca did a very good job of eliminating Willie Fleming when he was out of bounds. She has a tenacity for going for the jugular, so I don't think it is any surprise that she knows how to stand up in this House and give the impression that she is a compassionate, concerned individual, committed to furthering the rights of human justice, and so forth.

The member was the Provincial Secretary a couple of years ago when a fellow — a former Yugoslavian — died at the age of 75 and left a fairly large sum of money to the province. I'm speaking of a man who is well known and was recently reported in the newspaper. His name is Dan Matijevich. Mr. Matijevich felt obligated to try and return some of the benefits he had received in this province back to the people of the province in a bequest to the province of $141,697.65 — moneys that he had laboured for for over 50 years as a logger on the coast of British Columbia.

The moneys were, in part, his life savings and, in part, his pension, and as a result of him living frugally — eating soup out of tins and stale bread. He lived in a one-room flat in the downtown east side of Vancouver. Though this in itself was an unfortunate personal problem for the man, he was obviously well-motivated and felt that he would like to extend something to his fellow man in his passing. So he came to the government and asked them to, on his behalf, use the funds that he had given in a manner that would be in keeping with his wishes.

I would like to read to the House an order-in-council that was signed by the Minister of Human Resources, the then Provincial Secretary. I would like you to judge for yourself whether or not that money was used in the best interest of the bequest as it had been made to the government. It is order-incouncil No. 2859:

"Whereas upon his death in 1975, Mr. Dan Matijevich, a logger in this province for over 50

[ Page 1587 ]

years, bequeathed his entire estate to the province in gratitude for the sincere and happy life which he had enjoyed, expressing the wish that it might help other British Columbians;

"Whereas the proceeds of the estate, amounting to $141,697.65, have been received into the consolidated revenue fund;

"Whereas the British Columbia Forest Foundation is to establish a British Columbia Hall of Fame in the proposed Forest Centre to honour those men and women who have been and are contrived to be instrumental in making this industry such an important part of our daily lives; and

"Whereas the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry, after consulting with the Minister of Forests, report that an appropriate use of those funds is an endowment to the British Columbia Forest Foundation to establish a British Columbia Forest Hall of Fame in the proposed Forest Centre;

"Whereas this expenditure was not foreseen or provided for by the Legislature, and is urgently and immediately required for the public good;

"Whereas the undersigned Minister of Finance reports that there is no legislative authority for this expenditure;

"Whereas the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry reports the necessity for this expenditure is urgent, a special warrant be prepared to be signed by the Lieutenant-Governor for the issuance from consolidated revenue fund of the sum of $141,697.65 for the above purpose."

It is signed by the Provincial Secretary at the time, Hon. Grace McCarthy.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this to the attention of the House because one thing you can say about that minister is that she's a good performer but she certainly knows where the action is. In all fairness, I think she practises the principle that charity begins at home. Certainly Mr. Matijevich's request to have the funds used to assist other people was hardly relevant once he had passed. I have no objection to a B.C. Forest Hall of Fame. In fact, I believe such an institution would probably have merit, and I would hope that individuals such as Mr. Matijevich, Mr. Gordon Gibson Sr. and others would be duly recognized and given their appropriate places for posterity. However, Mr. Matijevich was a resident of the downtown east side, one of the most under-represented, least-considered communities in our province. It's a bottom-of the-road, under-the-carpet community, one of the places where politicians feel safe in escaping their responsibilities to citizens who have, for perhaps no reason of their own, found themselves without resources, means or opportunities to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, as is commonly suggested by those people who have been successful in this competitive society of ours.

I would like to read a request submitted to the hon. Provincial Secretary of today, Mr. Evan Wolfe. This is on behalf of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, an organization that attempts to make up for the neglect that takes place in that area due to petty politics on behalf of partisan people who do not recognize the right of all citizens in this province to access to government, to the due process of law and the opportunity to live at at least a minimum level of dignity. This is submitted by Mr. Bruce Eriksen, the president of the association, requesting these funds be applied in the interest that Mr. Matijevich intended them:

"In the downtown east side of Vancouver there are thousands of recluses, elderly people, former miners, loggers, fishermen, construction workers, etc., who are spending the balance of their lives shut up in small cockroach- and vermin-infested rooms just as Dan Matijevich did when he was living here. That was one of the reasons that our association fought so long and hard to have the historic Carnegie library renovated and set aside as a community centre. I see by today's Vancouver Sun that our MLA for Vancouver Centre, Emery Barnes, has urged you to rescind the order-in-council that turned Dan's request over to the B.C. Forest Foundation for a B.C. Forest Hall of Fame, and that you have indicated that you will listen to another point of view.

"Well, I have another point of view. May I suggest that as Dan Metichovich was a resident of the downtown east side, and that he indicated that his bequest be used to help others, the provincial government should use the $141,697 dollars to complete renovation of the Carnegie Centre. Carnegie Centre has been open to the community for only a couple of months, and it is already overcrowded. Over 1,200 people today use the centre. If the basement were finished it would help to alleviate space problems on the main floors.

"I am therefore suggesting that you put Dan's bequest to this use, as it would benefit the greatest number of people. At the same time you could dedicate this space in this historic building to Dan Metichovich and include some exhibits for the B.C. Hall of Fame. Dan and the many loggers who live here would likely appreciate that.

"Yours truly, Bruce Eriksen. "

It is signed on behalf of the 3,200 members of their association and thousands of loggers, fishermen and miners who live in the area.

Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 1978, the now demoted Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the former Attorney-General, wrote a letter to Bruce Eriksen in response to a request for funds to complete the renovation of the Carnegie library. He suggested in that letter: "I am sure that you are also aware that this government, through the Provincial Secretary, has made a commitment to provide a substantial grant toward the development of the Carnegie library project: $500,000 from the recreational facilities fund." Well, Mr. Speaker, we're still trying to locate the order-in-council that made that money available, because it seems to have gotten lost some place. This is now 1980, and we have yet to receive it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the year of that letter?

MR. BARNES: That was 1958 — some time ago. I'm sorry, it was 1978. But it may have been that long ago, because we're not going to hear any more about it, I'm sure. What I'm trying to point out is that the government has a budget before us that gives the impression it is concerned about people. The fact is, the budget is a political instrument used to perpetuate those people who are collected for one common purpose: to perpetuate themselves, to maintain power, to hang onto power. Every single one of those people over there came together in reaction to something, not for

[ Page 1588 ]

something; they were afraid the people were collectively gathering together to bring in a government that cared about them, and they decided they were going to lose too much. So we had Liberals walk across the floor and we had Conservatives walk across the floor, and independents and everybody else got together and called themselves the Social Credit Party, which in fact only had nine members at the time. It's really a story that I don't need to talk about, because I think they are falling apart on their own.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In introducing the budget, the Minister of Finance said: "It is a chance to present in tangible form the government's plans for dealing with pressing social and economic issues.... With a…healthy economy, we are now able to…build." He says that the budget shows we have the ability to improve people services while building a surplus. Well, we know they know how to build surpluses. The question is, are they in fact helping people? The budget is an attempt to deceive. Quite candidly, I think it's a cynical budget submitted by a cynical minister with the support of a cynical government.

Quite frankly, I had hoped to be humorous, because I know what it's like to try to get through the harangues and hubbub in the House from each side of the floor. This is a very serious time, a time when the government should concern itself with the pressing problems of today. A government should be concerned with real, long-lasting problems instead of the kinds of insults we get from the Premier. He came in with a $200 million mortgage assistance program, suggesting that we want to encourage homeownership by all British Columbians. That doesn't deserve comment. Can you imagine the Premier being that much out to lunch not to realize the serious problems we have in this province? Does he think he can bring $200 million in, subsidizing the mortgage payments of a few people, and deal with the problem created by this government because of its fundamental philosophy that it has no role in the marketplace in terms of providing affordable housing for people in the medium- and low-income ranges? Basically they are opposed to helping people.

The B.C. Housing Corporation, which the minister sitting in front of me suggests still exists, has no testicles, Mr. Speaker — if you don't mind me using that expression; I think it's parliamentary. It has no base. It was robbed. It was dismantled. They sold all its assets and all its land, everything that really mattered, and now they have a skeleton they call the B.C. Housing Corporation. And he has the gall to sit there and say that they are doing something about the problem. I say that philosophically they are opposed to doing anything about the problem. They don't want to tell that to the people, but they want to have all the skeletons up to impress people that they are doing something. They're doing nothing.

In speaking about housing, I want to quote some comments made by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who doesn't happen to be in his place at the moment. This minister is perhaps even more clever than the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) when it comes to deception. Yesterday the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was reading some of the promises made by the government. He flashed around a Social Credit ad that was printed in the lower mainland papers which said Social Credit will not abolish rent controls. He didn't read the rest of it, but I will read it. It probably cost them quite a few hundred thousand dollars. On December 11, 1975 — that's three days before the election — they said:

"Social Credit will not" — underlining 'not' — "abolish rent controls. Any removal of rent controls at this time would only create a chaotic housing situation. Social Credit is committed to keeping the present legislation, which limits the extent of rent increases. This is only part of the answer to the high cost of shelter. A Social Credit government will encourage and assist in the construction of more low-cost rental housing so that more people can live comfortably and decently within their means.

"Putting fear into the minds of British Columbians of all ages by suggesting that our party will abolish rent controls is unfair and a sad commentary on the election campaigning of the present government. On December 11 vote the way you want to. Vote Social Credit!"

Well, what do I need to say about that? I think the situation speaks for itself. Just pick up the papers any day and look at the headlines. We have one of the worst vacancy rates in rental housing in North America, let alone British British Columbia or Canada.

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the former Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, now the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who is not in his seat. Here is a little bit of his poetry, and perhaps the House could help us unravel it. He says:

"If owning were free, there would be no tenant; if renting were free, there would be no owners; if owning is a better bargain, there will be more owners; if renting is a better bargain, there will be obviously more tenants."

Then he goes on to say:

"But the relationship between owning or renting is not exactly economic; it is partly psychological."

Well, I'll tell you, when you're outside looking in, it's definitely a psychological problem, and not a very comfortable one at that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that people should start to think about what Social Credit is doing, what they're saying, because we're dealing in actions, not in just their words. That same former Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, responsible for rental housing and the Residential Tenancy Act at the time, went on to say:

"…but the headlines in the Victoria Times about ten days ago that indicated to old-age pensioners and people on welfare and things of that nature that 'they were going to have rent controls lifted, they were going to be out in the streets,' have no basis in any statement made by me or any member of this government. It has no basis whatsoever."

Can you imagine that? "No basis whatsoever."

You can say all those things if you want, and you can try to pick up your Brownie points, and so be it — you have to live with this. But I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the past, as the Premier has said and as all members of this government have said: "We do not intend to decontrol rents, save and except where the vacancy rate warrants." And the vacancy rate certainly does not warrant it in the disadvantaged areas that the members opposite have been talking about. This was August 29, 1977. "The people who have difficulty in raising enough of their disposable

[ Page 1589 ]

income to make rent, who the first member for Vancouver East, Mr. Macdonald, talked about, where one-third or two-thirds of their income go to rent, those people have nothing to fear from anything that this government proposes. I hope the public will understand that once and for all."

Well, I think in some cases they're spending a lot more than one-third and two-thirds of their disposable income for rent, Mr. Speaker. In fact it's impossible to get a piece of property for your home or in any other way, no matter how much money you're making practically, with 15 and 18 percent first mortgages — absolutely impossible. I would like to ask why this government isn't taking the initiative to introduce its own banking system. I think we had made an introduction with the B.C. Savings and Loan — I believe it was called that or something of that sort — that Mr. Barrett had introduced, and I believe it could still be proclaimed if this government so felt it wanted to take on the banks and give the people a real break.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's right, hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). The fact is that if you have a 15 percent mortgage....

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the member speaking has constantly referred to members who are sitting in this House by their Christian names. I thought it was the practice, when in this House, to refer to members by the constituencies which they represent.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. It was obvious that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was quoting from a document. If the hon. the minister was attentive, he would know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. The second member for Vancouver Centre, having consideration for the points as mentioned.

MR. BARNES: Further on these quotes, Mr. Speaker — and they should be made for the record, because I think in the days and months ahead we will be dealing with this government much more strenuously than just these simple quotes. But the public has to know what they promised and what they are doing.

In no way therefore does the phasing-out of controls mean that we are abandoning the tenant to the variables of the marketplace and to the tender mercies of the landlord. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to phase out controls. We are equally determined that no one be victimized by our so doing, so we'll be monitoring the controls to assure that this happens.

Well, I don't know what the government is doing, but I know in Vancouver Centre you've caused an incredible amount of suffering on behalf of people. I want to give you an example. As a matter of fact, I don't need the notes on this one, because this is a place at 1485 Davie Street which I attended, where there are a mixture of people and age groups — senior citizens, singles, and a few with children. It's one of the few places in that area, incidentally, that permits children to live in apartments. These people were not only issued notices of increases considerably in excess of the 7 percent which is allowable by statute, but all of the landlords are taking advantage of the extra sections which permitted 12 percent increases, and some others which did not have to be specified. In some cases we had increases as high as 50 and 75 percent that, obviously, were going to be appealed by those recipients in due course.

In that 90-day period those people were anxious, frustrated, uncertain, and suffering needless inconvenience and upset as a result of a piece of legislation which should never have been drafted in the manner in which it was. Most of those applications could have been heard in advance, they could have been reviewed by the Rent Review Commission, and there could have been a mechanism whereby they could have been worked over to the point that they would have been more realistic, and in fact they probably would have been rejected in any event. Many people moved out of frustration and fear, and they suffered needlessly.

What has this government done on behalf of the rental situation in the province? I've yet to find out. I don't think that anything is going to happen. I think, in fact, the government is going to tell people that all they've got to do is "wait until we get B.C. Place constructed, and there will be plenty of jobs and more things will be happening, and you just hang on there. Hang on and hang on and hang on."

Mr. Speaker, while that project was intended as a political ploy on behalf of the government to give people the impression that it had an economic initiative and it was going to stimulate the downtown area, the fact is that the Premier once again showed himself to be somewhat of a fumbler. He made some friends, however. I'm sure that they're all members of Marathon Realty, because that was a better deal than insider trading — when you're going to start announcing what you're going to do before you secure the lands and make the deals. Now he's going to tell us that B.C. Place will be a good deal for the people of British Columbia, and they don't have anything secured, not to mention the lands. What about the cost-sharing? What commitments are made? Where are the funds going to come from?

I can tell you, we'll by paying a heck of a lot of money for that B.C. Place now that everybody knows it's going up but no deals have been made. What would you do if you owned land that someone wanted to put a multi-billion dollar project up on, and you hadn't made any commitments yet? That's how stupid that whole gang are, and they're all the business people. Here you're getting suggestions from social workers and people out there accused of being "do-gooders," but we have enough insight to know that you don't tell your left hand what you're going to do. It reminds me of a southpaw leading with his left. That's the way that Premier behaves, so I don't see how he can make anything but friends among the rich, and make the poor more destitute.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I'll leave that question and ask the government what it is doing about the large number of immigrants who have become new Canadians that we find ourselves hosting in the province. I'm thinking primarily of commitments the government has made as far as English as a second language is concerned? At the present time the federal government permits something like 100,000 immigrants to come to the country on an annual basis, but as far as strategy support services, rehabilitation and settlement programs are concerned, there are many things that need to be done to ensure that these people have a chance to take part in our society on an equal basis with other Canadians. I suppose I should I rephrase that, because some of the Canadians would, I think, be taking a step down if they lived by the standards of some, especially the ones whom I've just described, that are being totally neglected by the government. However, I would suggest that in the budget the govern-

[ Page 1590 ]

ment has been negligent in not showing, philosophically, its recognition that it is not sufficient to fund only the greater Vancouver area as far as English-as-a-second-language courses and programs are concerned. While there may be a large number of people settling in this area, there are far greater numbers in the outlying areas of the province who do not have any facilities whatsoever. So this isn't just a case of playing politics in the area where the population seems to be the greatest; it is recognizing a fundamental responsibility to people who come to this country with the belief that the opportunities have been rationalized in a responsible way within the statutory capacity of the government, so that they can be assured of an opportunity to compete relatively successfully in our system.

I would just refer you to some recommendations that have been made to the Ministry of Education by a study committee — it was a discussion paper of a year or two ago — and I would hope that debate of the budget the government would indicate that they are well on their way toward fulfilling some of these obligations. There were about six or eight points that had been suggested, and I will highlight these. But the government should undertake to identify the needs and fund them 100 percent. These points are: (1) full-time instructors are needed, not just people who are available on an ad hoc basis — there is a need to have a comprehensive program of instruction that covers the whole province; (2) there needs to be an upgrading program in place for those staff; (3) there need to be special programs for individuals with special needs; (4) there should be outreach programs for people in remote areas. And I don't mean just in the populated areas around some central community. There are many people who are really making an additional gift of themselves to the province by inhabiting areas that most Canadians normally would not want to inhabit. This is similar to the problem that we are having with the medical profession. We need doctors in remote areas and they are not willing to go because the profits aren't sufficient, despite the fact that they supposedly have some concern for the betterment of human health. The others are resource concepts, in terms of ongoing resource material and philosophic support at all levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lot of people in this field who are doing a lot of things in the colleges and resource centres such as Britannia Centre in the downtown east side, and in federal employment agencies such as Manpower and so forth, but none of these are coordinated. The problem is that there needs to be an understanding of how to be efficient in delivering the services to the immigrant. Of course, there are refugees who also fall into this category, in terms of providing services for them.

I don't know if the government really cares that much as long as it can give the appearance that it is appropriating funds in this area. I would suggest that if we did this we would benefit far more than our expenditures. Most people who come to a country of their own will, who are making a choice to come to a country, who are not citizens by natural birth, are usually driven by a high level of motivation and commitment to try and prove themselves, to try and take part and be independent. But when language is a problem, right off the bat they will have difficulties socially, difficulties economically — trying to find employment. It is also a problem if they are attempting to educate themselves, because they are spending most of their time trying to understand what is going on. I think this would be an indication of the government's concern for people, if it were to take the leadership in this field.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude with a statement on the government's concept of helping people. I would just like the government to analyze what the thrust of that over $6 billion budget is really doing. I would like it to stop and think: "Who are the people who are going to be directly helped? What does it have to do with the unemployment situation today? What does it have to do with the virtual disfranchisement of individuals in the community who no longer feel that they can be heard?" It is a pretty critical, very urgent situation for people in the medium- and lower-income areas. They are concerned because they are being wiped out. In excess of 35 percent of wealth in this country is controlled by, perhaps, 10 percent of the population, whereas the low 10 percent are lucky if they control 2 percent of the wealth, and all those in the middle are scrambling. There are a large number of people in this society who have no hope unless the government shows real compassion. They're not going to succeed because you create some kind of competitive situation in which they have to perform against insurmountable odds to try and achieve a level of subsistence that any decent human being would expect. I would ask the government to question the philosophy behind its concepts.

The questions I'm trying to raise are not questions that normally are easy to understand when you are the particular collection of individuals that there is on the government side. With respect, I can appreciate that. But I think they should make an effort to realize that they have only one life themselves, and if they have any decency or concern, they should take some chances on people rather than on politics.

It is almost a damnable offence — it's probably close to being indictable, Mr. Speaker — when you consider the surplus they're sitting on over there, and have the gall to brag about, with the suffering that is going on in this province today. That is something that I find despicable. At a time when we should be deficit financing, they are banking it and saying, "We are good managers," as people are walking the streets.

They haven't constructed a single rental housing project in my constituency since they were elected. In fact, they wiped out everything we were doing because they are fundamentally opposed to it. "Leave it to the marketplace." Well, I can tell you, nothing is being constructed by the marketplace as far as housing is concerned. Nothing is being constructed in Vancouver Centre by those people who are supposed to be motivated by profit. And to show you how unwise the decision by their former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was, he said: "We're not going to control anything after 1974, in terms of rent controls, because we want to stimulate construction." Well, nothing's happened. Actually, Mr. Speaker, we do not even have rent controls in this province.

What are they waiting for? They're waiting for gifts. They're waiting for welfare — the upper end of welfare — something for nothing. What I'm suggesting is that your budget is appealing to those who have, not to those who do not have. If you were to have some faith in the real resources in this province — that's the people — you'd find they would be more than willing to go and meet their own needs, if they were given half a chance. But that's not the way it's going to be. I know it. You know it. You've been playing games. But come next election you will find, as my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) suggested the

[ Page 1591 ]

other day, that you've burdened the people with a great deal. You've burdened them with unemployment, with hard times, and a high cost of living. But what you've burdened them with the most, Mr. Speaker, is Social Credit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before recognizing the next speaker, I would caution the previous member about any reference of that manner to the Chair.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, I'm sure, was not referring to the Chair; it was just that he inserted the name "Mr. Speaker" in the middle of his sentence, and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am familiar with what took place, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: He wasn't referring to the Speaker; he was referring to the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I will be joining the other members of the government in voting that you leave the chair so that we can get on with supporting the marvellous budget that my colleague the Minister of Finance brought down a few days ago. The members opposite were depressed by that budget for good reason. You'd be depressed too, Mr. Speaker, if you looked at how bad your record was and then had to see how good the record of the present government was. It's appropriate that those members opposite should discuss gloom and doom, because they understand it so well. When they're in power they bring it to everyone in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I note that some are even calling it lucky that we've got such prosperity in British Columbia. Lucky! Well, to paraphrase a former federal member, who noted that when his party was in power good times came and when the other party was in power poor times came, are you going to vote for good luck or bad luck? I should think....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, my colleague down there, the party Whip (Mr. Mussallem), brought forward the true revelation of what went on during your years in power, that steep decline in provincial prosperity.

I dare say there's one problem you might be able to do better with than our government. That's solving the housing problem. You've talked so much about it. I'll tell you how they were solving the housing problem when they were in power: they were driving everybody out of British Columbia. Our problem is that everybody is coming here now, because this is the have province in Canada, where prosperity and opportunity are. We're going to get those houses built for the people who come to British Columbia, but it's a tough job.

The members opposite talk about the days when people on the opposite side of the House realized that they had to get together to bring good government to British Columbia. I remember going to Kamloops during the 1975 campaign. The person who picked me up at the airport said that when the NDP came to power he headed a large mining exploration company. He said: "When the NDP came to power I had 250 people working for me. Guess how many I have now."

I said: "I don't know."

He said: "Zero." The whole business was gone. He said: "It isn't just that I've lost 250 employees. The people who worked for me were people who had high skills in the mining field. They've scattered around the world, and I can't bring those people back and rebuild a team overnight. "

I don't know how many employees he has now, but it illustrates that you cannot repair the damage overnight. It takes time to put the bustle back on. If you've got a sick horse — and that's what British Columbia had; it had to undergo major surgery when we first came to power — it takes a while to recover and build the strength back.

The buoyancy of that budget, Mr. Speaker, indicates that British Columbia has got its muscle back again. When the economy has muscle, when there's a strong back, it can carry the heavy load of social services and benefits to people, talked about all the time by the members opposite. You've got to have a strong back in your economy before you can provide those kinds of services. What you did was destroy the economic animal in British Columbia. That's what the graph of my honourable friend there shows. That's the truth; that's what happened.

All I can say is, if people want to keep a healthy, strong economy in British Columbia, they'll keep a government in power that has the philosophy of Social Credit. The budget that was brought down here is no better proof of that.

MR. MACDONALD: How can you say that after the book you wrote?

HON. MR. McGEER: Nobody said the economy was bad.

What happened during all those years is that you were propped up in debate by the people who sat in the Liberal and Conservative benches. They didn't notice the things that you were saying, but they're noticing them now because you're the only opposition. I know what you people want to do. You want to get power again as soon as you can. You talk about everybody who is a free enterpriser — not just this government but the people who build the economy of British Columbia — as being motivated by money, power and greed. That's what you said over there. That's your philosophy, and that's what you believe the mainstream of British Columbia is motivated by — not your friends, not the people you support when you're in government, but the mainstream of people in British Columbia. Money, power and greed: that's your belief. You believe in socialism and you believe the other people feel that way.

Well, there's a cost to that, if you want to get power right away. I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP was quoted in the press as having developed a very clever device. They were going to get back early after dinner, eat lightly, run back to the Legislature, hide behind the bushes, and then hope somehow they'd be able to defeat the government, so they thought — not by the power of their policy, their argument or the belief of the members here in the House or the public of British Columbia, but by some sly tactic; not, of course, motivated by money, power or greed, but by the pure motives that your party hold — somehow mousetrap the situation and hope to gain power that way when they don't have the confidence of the House and the people.

But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, if that kind of vote ever takes place by mistake in the House, there's one proper way to deal with it, and that's to bring in a motion of confidence

[ Page 1592 ]

and find out how the people who are elected to sit will vote when the question is put to them when they are on this floor. Don't think for a moment that by some slippery tactic you're going to win a vote in the House and get an election. And don't think, as many people in the press have advocated — and I read the papers the same as you do — that somehow people are going to leave this side of the House, heaven help us, for that side over there.

It's my job to look after some of the consuming side of our budget and this is why, for the things that I have to administer, I'm so grateful that we've got a government and a Minister of Finance that can provide the sort of economy that will support education, health, social services, universities, science and communication. There's a strong element of the future, Mr. Speaker, in each of the areas for which I have responsibility in this government, and I'd like to speak very briefly about each of them.

Our universities are where we develop the higher skills among the young people of our province whom we expect to be the leaders in the professions and in the business life of our province. The degree to which we can provide them with the education they need, and the skills society will require, will in large measure determine the state of our human condition from the producing side in British Columbia, and therefore the future health of our province. Many members may have taken the opportunity to visit the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University at their recent open houses, and to gain from those displays a peek into what the future is going to bring, in terms of what the faculty and students at those institutions are now working upon which will help us in the future.

We have established, to work in conjunction with our universities, a foundation called Discovery Foundation. This was established, Mr. Speaker, between the last sitting of this House and the current session. The objective of Discovery Foundation is to bring to British Columbia a totally different kind of industry from what we've had in the past. The government has advanced, through special warrant, some $13 million to Discovery Foundation, to provide the infrastructure and the initial buildings that will house the activities which we hope will change, in the long run, the face of industry in this province.

I think I should describe very briefly for the members the difference between high-technology industry and the traditional industries that have driven the economy of this province and this nation. We have grown up in British Columbia on resource industries. The industries come here because the coal is here, the trees are here, the minerals are here, or the power is here. In other parts of Canada, particularly Ontario and Quebec, there has been manufacturing industry based on proximity to mass markets, but which operates less efficiently in this nation than in most developed countries of the world because of the sparsity of population, thus leaving us in this country with a standard of living which is lower than the richness of our resources might make possible. High technology industry isn't based on proximity to resources or upon proximity to mass markets; it's based solely on ingenuity and the ability to use scientific skills to produce products that are unknown, or have been unknown up until the present time.

In the course of establishing a climate for these industries to operate in British Columbia and in Canada, we have discovered departures we must make from the traditional approaches to our national economy. The difference between high-technology industry and the other types that I've described is that high-technology industry can establish anywhere. It doesn't depend on mass markets, it doesn't depend on resources, and it can as easily be found in British Columbia as in Ontario, California, Washington, Singapore, Ireland, Greece or any place in the world.

So what must we do in Canada to gain our share? In high technology, Mr. Speaker, you don't roll your sleeves up and begin to go to work unless you have a world market. You're not trying to sell something just in British Columbia or in Canada or in North America. You're selling to the world, and you're selling skills that no one else possesses. Therefore, if the people who are to build this industry, provide the employment and the wealth are to undertake their activities in this province or in this nation, the manufacturers must be placed on an equal basis with their counterparts in other developed nations. It's something, Mr. Speaker, that we have never been forced before to contemplate in our country, because we felt always that the industries will have to come to us because we have the resources, or there has to be manufacturing of a certain primitive kind because there is a mass market to serve. Since neither of these requirements apply to high technology, and since the world is the market and the sky is the limit, then you have to think in a much more intelligent way about your competitive manufacturing position here versus other areas of the world.

What we've discovered in trying to establish these industries here in British Columbia is that things are not the same here as elsewhere. We're going to have to make some changes in our thinking if we want to benefit from the great prospects that this holds for us, because we've got the people, we've got the intelligence, we've got the inventiveness, we've got the capital. But there are certain things we have to learn.

The first of these — and, Mr. Speaker, I would not have believed it if this had not been the major impediment during the past three years to our making progress — is simply getting land. If one goes to high-technology research parks, they are clearly the most attractive industrial settlements that exist anywhere in the world. There is no smoke, there is no pollution, there are none of the problems that plague heavy manufacturing, because that's not what's involved. It's taking natural products worth a few cents and making them into computers, fibre optics, satellites and all of the glamour products of today that our friends opposite here want just as badly as anybody else in the world, and perhaps more so. We don't have land in British Columbia that we're prepared to commit to this kind of development, and that's been the major impediment. You can't sell from an empty wagon. We're gradually overcoming this. You know, we're mean people when it comes to land. We're cautious. We're afraid to use our land, no matter how attractive the development. We want to either lock it away in parks or lock it away in agricultural land reserves. You can't provide jobs and do things for people when you're obsessed with the sorts of thinking that prevent even the most attractive industrial developments going ahead.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we lack equivalent opportunities for people to obtain capital to build plants in Canada. Why should they build in British Columbia or Quebec or Nova Scotia or anywhere else in Canada if they can obtain the capital to do the same job in the state of Washington or in California or in Singapore or West Germany or some other location in the world? If we want to give our people jobs and

[ Page 1593 ]

opportunities, if we want them to participate in the excitement of the new industrial revolution, then we have to make it possible for our Canadian manufacturers who have the skills to build their plants here rather than elsewhere. There is no point to spending the money inventing and developing a better mousetrap in British Columbia if it becomes advantageous to manufacture it and to provide the jobs and the benefits somewhere else in the world.

So we have to be prepared to provide for our Canadian inventors, our Canadian manufacturers, land for them to build their plants, capital at competitive rates, and we have to do other things as well. We have to understand that we're the most protected nation on earth, but that that fence we erect around our country to prevent other products coming in is just as high as the fence our manufacturers who can sell to the world have to climb over to get their products into foreign markets to earn the income for Canada that will make it possible for us to have all the goods and services we desire. The tariff barrier preventing things coming in is the export barrier to prevent manufactured goods going out.

It's possible, of course, to establish relationships that make it easy to move goods back and forth. If, for example, a Canadian manufacturer wishes to bring in semi-conductor components to build a computer, he's in the unenviable position of paying a tariff on the parts coming in and paying another tariff on the foreign goods going out. We've simply got to cut the red tape — this is at the federal level — which prevents the easy movement of goods back and forth and sets up for our manufacturers the kinds of impediments that only hurt the prosperity of this province and this nation.

Next we need to develop a system — and this is just a little more difficult, Mr. Speaker — of prototype buying in the country. So much of high-technology spinoffs that are existent in North America today have come as a result of prototype buying by the United States defence forces. We don't have that type of prototype buying in Canada, but we need its equivalent. If a Canadian company develops a new method for instrument landing approaches for aircraft, as has been done, and goes to another country to sell that system — because remember that the world is going to be the market and they say, "How many have you sold in Canada?" and the Canadian manufacturer says, "Well, I haven't sold any," he doesn't have much credibility.

So initial prototypes are something that we need to be able to support in Canada so that we can get the leverage with worldwide sales, which are manyfold over that first initial sale. People still talk about the Avro Arrow as the greatest aircraft that was every designed and built. The Canadian government years and years ago wouldn't buy a prototype, and it resulted in the destruction of our aerospace industry — a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. People in Canada are just beginning to learn now of the damage that was done by that decision not to purchase a prototype aircraft.

We're making progress. I cite these problems only as examples of the kind of economic thinking that has got to begin to penetrate the whole of the nation, and particularly the federal government, if we're to move to take advantage of the skills of our people and the inventiveness of those who go through our universities. We have obtained some land in British Columbia. I expect that there will be announcements in the next month or two with respect to the first high technology developers who will be locating in this province. We've embarked on a program that will have a long-term payoff. We won't see the full results of this for another generation, but I suspect in the coming months we'll begin to see the first initial developments, and I would think that there would be a continued acceleration in British Columbia along these lines.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In addition to the opportunities for high-technology industry that flow from pure invention, unrelated to the natural resources of our area, we have been given some rare advantages because of the natural resources that we do possess. Again, our ability to exploit these resources and take advantage of the new opportunities which have been presented to us by the OPEC nations — and the blackmail that they've exerted against the developed nations of the west — is because we have not nurtured the kinds of skills that are required to exploit these resources.

One of them, obviously, is coal. My colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), mentioned today that our known coal reserves would supply all of the fossil fuel needs of British Columbia — i.e., substituting for all the oil that we import, because everything that you can do with oil you can do with coal — at current rates of consumption for 12,000 years, and enough to satisfy all of the voracious needs of North America, which have been so criticized and which have led many to believe that natural resources will run out, for 120 years. The important point, Mr. Speaker, is that we haven't really begun to look seriously for these resources. After all, if you've got enough supply for 12,000 years, what's the point in spending money hunting for more?

We've got a similar situation with respect to our natural gas. We were running out of natural gas, you will remember, in 1975 when this government took power. Now we've got so many rigs in the province and we've discovered so much natural gas that the difficulty is in giving some kind of a return to the person who spent money exploring, so that all the money he's put in he hasn't wasted — except for something his great-grandchildren might inherit, providing the members opposite never come to power and institute an inheritance tax to take it all away.

So it's a difficult thing to send people out exploring for resources for which there's no foreseeable need. We've got a tremendous amount of gas, and I'm sure we're going to discover more. But there will have to be methods of giving people who do discover gas some opportunity to get just a little bit of that investment back.

Our biggest requirement at the present time is to find a short-term solution for the gasoline we burn in our cars; that's where most of the oil we import is used. We can make it from coal and we can use our own natural gas; and by developing technology we can do this simply and cheaply. It's something which the Science ministry is addressing at the present time. We'll have enough to drive our cars and everybody else's cars farther into the future than we can see. So our problem is not a shortage of materials; we've got far more than we need. Our problem is neglect of technology. We don't know how to use it quickly and simply when we need it.

We have something else as our ace in the hole that should be mentioned. As the OPEC nations push up the price of oil every three or four months — believe me, they're going to continue to do so until alternatives are discovered in quantity; they've found that the price of oil is inelastic, and they're going to push and push and push — what happens as these

[ Page 1594 ]

prices escalate is that all the prices of chemical feedstock in the world begin to soar with them. We know this because of our automobile we drive every day — and that's what we're worried about. But lying behind are all the manifold goods made by the chemical industry around the world; they're dependent upon feedstocks, principally from natural gas and from oil. There was a time, when I worked in the chemical industry in the United States, when these things were all made from coal. That technology has been forgotten. Middle East oil and gas finds in the Texas fields in the United States made feedstock from these two sources more plentiful and cheaper; but those are becoming very dear. What we have in British Columbia today is the basis for producing not just chemical feedstock but the whole range of plastics and manufactured chemicals that flow from that. Again, it's a question of technology, and it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Science to begin looking at some of those opportunities.

Finally, I'd like to talk for a moment or two about the third responsibility I carry, which lies in the field of communications. Here, again, we're entering into a revolution in our lives which has been brought about by rapidly advancing technology. We will very soon have in our homes information brought to us over television sets of a totally different order of magnitude than anything we've dreamed about in the past. This is because laser technology, fibre optics, computers and satellites — four important new technologies — have been applied and are now being developed into systems to bring information into the home.

Right now there are over 100 television stations on satellite. For the benefit of members, before too long I hope to have some of these receiving devices, so we can have an opportunity to discover what is already available in the airwaves simply by developing a more sophisticated type of antenna for a television set. At the present time much of it is entertainment, because that seems to be the source of information people most desire; but coming hard on its heels will be education. It's my hope that within a few months we will have an educational television network operating in British Columbia, capable of bringing hard educational programs into every home in the province. As we go into the future, moving into the hundred or more channels that will be available on television sets as a result of these new technologies, people will have available all kinds of specialized information in areas that were totally closed to them before: information about resources, the law, health, economics, and perhaps even the debates in this Legislature.

These, Mr. Speaker, will be among the variety of new types of entertainment and education that will be available as a result of satellite transmission and more sophisticated cable operations that will be able to move back and forth. Already we're broadcasting educational programs from BCIT to 11 centres in British Columbia — in the fields of education, health and forestry. There's one on now on forestry management. These programs are giving to those who are in remote areas of the province an opportunity to gain information that's been denied them in the past. Most important, I believe, in this new information revolution which we are on the threshold of today will be the opportunity for two-way interaction. It may be possible for you to do your shopping, to do your banking, to read the newspapers, not by having them delivered to your home but by pushing a button and having it displayed on your screen.

Someone explained to me once, Mr. Speaker, that to keep the Vancouver Sun in operation it would require a strip of trees the width of a football field and the length of the country totally dedicated to the Vancouver Sun. That's how many trees we have to grow to keep the Vancouver Sun publishing every day, if you can believe that. Well, the time may come in the future when we won't have to use all the trees for that purpose, but we'll just be able to put it on the screen and push a button if we want it and push another button if we don't. So, if you're going to make available to people tremendous masses of information, which will be possible once fibre-optic transmission is introduced, then you have to have, of course, methods by which this information can be selected and displayed upon your screen.

All of these new developments will require a certain amount, heaven help us, of regulation by government. I would like to think that by anticipating the new technologies and the new demands, those who would regulate in government for once wouldn't do what always happens when regulatory agencies are created — namely, inhibit new and effective things from being done — but would actually anticipate and help. The most important aspect of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is to take advantage of all of these opportunities, and that can only happen when there's sound government dedicated to the sort of principles that allow people who are capable of producing for society to do so. It should not be controlled by government regulation. Give them an opportunity to produce for the others, and then all the benefits that you people talk about all the time without ever thinking about the people who have to produce them, without thinking about the strong back that this economy must have if we're to carry the social services in British Columbia.... You'll be able to have the things that you talk about all the time. The way to get them is to keep that group there in opposition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. I really do enjoy his speeches. It's not that the content has changed much over the years, because ever since I've been in the House the content has been relatively the same; I think it's speech number six.

However, I would like to make a point, Mr. Speaker, and have it recorded. It seems to me that in this particular session of the Legislature the Social Credit members have been actually refighting the 1975 election campaign. They haven't been defending their government's approach to the budget, in this case, which we're now debating, or will be in a minute. The fact is we're still fighting those same old issues, and I think people are getting a bit tired of it. What we'd like to hear from that side is a real defence of this budget, and we haven't heard that.

I am going to outline two or three other reasons why I won't be supporting this budget, but that alone — that we haven't had a good defence of this budget — would be reason enough not to support it.

Just to take a bit of an overview on this budget to begin with, I've read it quite carefully and attempted to analyze how it's going to affect people in my riding and throughout the province. There are quite a few good things in it, although in some ways they don't go far enough. For example, approximately two-thirds of the unanticipated revenues of over $900 million in this budget are not from taxation but from natural resources, and can be largely attributed to policies that were brought in by an NDP government. Lumber sales were expected to decline sharply this year but, as people in

[ Page 1595 ]

the United States kept on building homes, the income from lumber sales was much more than anticipated. So there was another source of income for this government. The $1.5 billion in profits to this government over the last five years or so was brought in by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — a product of an NDP government.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the B.C. Petroleum Corporation was started by the NDP government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In spite of the fact that your government attempted to dismember — and is in the process of dismembering — many of the operations that were started by the NDP, you've never dismembered that operation, because you know a good thing when you see it, Mr. Member for Omineca. Besides, why aren't you getting ready for your committee next week? Go do some research.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

The budget goes on to discuss research and development. They're allotting $6.5 million for research and development this year in the province. In my view, that's quite an insignificant sum for this major type of activity in which we should be engaged today. We're all aware that, as governments like this allow foreign capital and foreign interests to take over and control the basic economy of this province, when those foreign interests take over the control of that resource or activity or whatever it may be, they usually promptly close down research and development activities in this province and in this country. I think that has to be stopped. In any event, I don't think it will be stopped by this government. To budget only $6.5 million for that purpose is not nearly enough.

There was no announced increase in the homeowner grant. In fact, there has been no increase in the homeowner grant since 1979. That was an election year, but between 1975 and 1979 there was no increase.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Don't make me shout; if you get me mad you know what happens.

The last announced homeowner grant by this government was purely an election ploy, as are so many other of their budgetary items. When it comes to providing care for the sick and handicapped in this province, what do we see? Not a great deal, although it was a major issue in the last campaign. But when it comes to blacktop, they find all kinds of money. I would venture to say right now that in the next provincial election — some two or three years down the road, unless we catch these guys napping again — we will see another increase in the homeowner grant. I will admit that they increased the grant for seniors, but I would suspect that very few people are going to be able to take advantage of that particular portion of the grant.

While I'm discussing seniors, this budget allows $1 million for senior citizens' housing. How far do you think that will go? Not too darn far, in my opinion. I think it's a pretty paltry sum and a pretty paltry way to treat the senior citizens in our province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget discusses a lot of things — just about every aspect of government, I guess. Certainly one of the things of interest to me, and to a lot of people in my riding, is the forestry portion of the budget speech. I'm willing to say right off the top that it looks like progress. I think the $146.6 million allotment for reforestation in the budget is a good start. It's certainly breaking a tradition of this government. In the past they usually underspent their reforestation programs; we'll see what they do with this program.

What I'm getting at here is that first of all, all of this $146.6 million allotted in the budget for reforestation will not be spent for that purpose. In fact, if I am to believe what I have been told by some foresters recently, only a small portion of that $146.6 million has to actually be spent for reforestation over the five-year period. There have been a number of agencies over the past week or so who have said: "Well, look, it's better than it was, but there should be far more being done." This budget doesn't even come close to coming up to the Sloan commission report which took place over 20 years ago. It suggested at that time, just to keep pace with the logging activities and harvesting activities taking place, that approximately 48,000 acres per year would have to be reforested. The program announced by this government allows only about 38,000 acres a year to be reforested, if the government follows through on its program, and they might have some difficulty doing that, although I really hope not.

The paper that was brought down last week by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).... Right here I want to give him a little bouquet, a little one, because we're going to have ample opportunity to discuss this whole paper during his estimates. But look, this was not a bad policy. It's called "The Forest and Range Resource Analysis: A Five-Year Program Summary," just for the record, and it does go into a lot of detail and explains a lot about what's happened in the past, and the way governments, any government, should perhaps be going. A lot of the credit will have to go to Mr. Pearse, who some time ago started the cycle of this type of report, the people in the ministry and the minister for initiating.... Look, it's not bad. It doesn't go far enough, but it's a start. All I can say is it's a good start. I know that particular paper will be of value to people who are interested in the forest industry for many years to come.

However, there is a lot of work still to be done. A direction, perhaps.... I haven't read the whole thing; it's bigger than two telephone books. I may never read the whole thing; I don't know. Don't smile; we're getting to the good part now, Mr. Minister. The fact is that a lot more has to be done, and the direction in terms of timber allocation, perhaps, to the unintegrated, small independents.... Questions like that have to be addressed. The paper doesn't really address itself to those problems.

In all fairness, I had a discussion yesterday with the minister about current stumpage rates for the small, unintegrated independent logger on the coast of British Columbia, many of whom are now simply not starting to open up their operations as they normally do this time of year, because of stumpage rates. There's a reason for that. However, I will say, in fairness, that the minister is taking steps, and I hope he follows through with the proposals he put forward to me

[ Page 1596 ]

yesterday on this issue, which mean literally hundreds of people on the coast of British Columbia will be put back to work within the next two weeks, when the minister is prepared to do his.... Well, I'll tell you, he knows what he has to do and I am sure he'll follow through.

Another area of this budget which is of extreme interest to me is the area dealing with energy. I wish I had some more of it this afternoon. Anyway, the budget document goes on at some length about various energy programs that the government is thinking of and may initiate. As my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) suggested here the other day, to say something nice about the budget, the fact that there is $27 million over a four-year period going into energy conservation programs is a start, but it's really quite a paltry sum when you think of the magnitude of the problem. We'll get into that in a minute, maybe.

In my view, that sum should have been, and could have been, easily $400 million or $500 million, which sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money. But there's a way to save and come up with this money. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year and over the last couple of years in this Legislature, I frequently discussed the matter of a proposed transmission line from Cheekye to Dunsmuir on Vancouver Island. I'm going to do it again today. The reason I discuss that particular project in this vein of energy conservation is that almost three years ago our caucus asked this government to place a moratorium on that proposed transmission line until we've had an opportunity to examine the need requirements for that line.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear at the outset that my colleagues and I recognize very well the future energy requirements of Vancouver Island. But the question I'm asking here is: was that the right way to go, or were there other things we could have been doing? If the government was wrong in this decision of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line, don't you think a lot of that $1 billion that it's going to cost to construct that line could have gone into energy conservation programs on Vancouver Island, as well as perhaps into initiating that proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island? For example, B.C. Hydro's own document here indicates that for a limited cost, for as much as $100 million perhaps, the energy losses in buildings — depending on their age, and they have a whole list I won't go through.... Up to 30 and 60 percent could be saved by energy conservation programs. I know that an energy conservation program will not run a pulpmill or heat a home effectively and all of those things; and as I said before, all of us on this side of the House thoroughly recognize Vancouver Island's future energy requirements. But you see the premise on which Hydro — which, by the way, seems to still be in control of energy policies in this province, and to some extent the government — went ahead and proceeded with this particular project in spite of the fact that a lot of people questioned the need for it. I'm going to give you some examples.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to pass too quickly over this proposed natural gas line, because it's a matter of great interest in my part of the coast and on Vancouver Island. I want to remind the House that natural gas is a B.C. resource, a lot of which we're now exporting to the United States to create job opportunities in that part of the world. I've nothing against our American friends, but the fact is, we have to look after ourselves a little bit first. I think we should have the first opportunity, as British Columbians, to utilize natural gas. And the only way to get that resource to Vancouver Island, the only major area in the province at the present time that does not have access to this resource, is by pipeline.

There are a lot of people in my part of the coast advocating the northern route, the Westcoast Transmission proposal. I've met with Westcoast Transmission and B.C. Hydro and looked at their proposal, and personally — I'm not speaking for anybody else — I support the Westcoast proposal at this time. However, I think that natural gas, which not only is a cheaper fuel but burns cleaner, would be of great benefit to people of my part of the coast: plants like Port Mellon, Woodfibre, Powell River, Campbell River, etc. I think that the government should really get moving and make some decisions in this regard. They've arbitrarily gone ahead with a transmission line that hardly anybody wanted, and here they're dithering and bothering about a proposed natural gas line. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government get with it.

Getting back to the Cheekye transmission line, you will recall that towards the dying days of the session in July last year I asked the then Minister of Environment if he had in his possession a copy of a report called the Shaffer report, which Mr. Shaffer had prepared for the Environment and Land Use Technical Committee of the government. The minister first of all denied ever heaving heard of the report, and finally admitted he'd heard of it; he finally admitted he had it but hadn't read it, etc., etc. It went on for days. In fact, the Shaffer report was never laid before this House. It was only made public by the minister after the session had adjourned last summer — which is a bit insulting, but that's fine. I'm prepared to accept that. Anyway, I'll quote very briefly from it, because most of this has never been placed in the record, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to discuss it very briefly. The Shaffer report says on page 1, near the introduction:

"The economic justification for the Cheekye-Dunsmuir is not based on a cost-benefit evaluation that conforms to the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat's guidelines for benefit-cost analysis. The array of alternatives considered, the measurement of costs and the discounting of future benefits and costs are deficient in terms of the guidelines outlined by the ELUC secretariat. "

In other words, what Mr. Shaffer is saying is that Hydro proceeded on this particular transmission line without proper economic and environmental justification — arbitrarily, without those justifications. You will recall as well, Mr. Speaker, Hydro told us for two years that the cost of this transmission line would be some $350 million, and then in a secret internal memo Hydro admitted the cost was going to be about $700 million, "but don't tell anybody; it will get everybody all upset." Now we learn that the final cost for this proposed transmission line will be in excess of $1 billion.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In fact, my colleague says they may even overrun the original price by $1 billion. I wouldn't be surprised, the way costs are escalating these days.

Anyway, for the record, Mr. Speaker, I was going to quote just a short part of the summary from the Shaffer report, because I would really like it on the record. I am going to quote this although I think most of our members are familiar with it. Mr. Shaffer says:

"In sum, while Hydro's analysis points to the

[ Page 1597 ]

500-Kv line as the most economical alternative..."

Remember, this is Hydro's analysis that he's talking about.

"....it is not clear that the same conclusion would be reached in a proper cost-benefit evaluation. Indeed, almost all of the factors not considered by Hydro, but which would have been considered in a cost-benefit evaluation, would point away from the recommended line."

And then Mr. Shaffer goes on to say:

"More specifically, the following studies are required: (1) a detailed review of the load-growth forecast focusing particularly on pulp and paper expansion, population and the impact of marginal cost-based rates; (2) a cost-benefit evaluation of the alternatives using Hydro's latest financial information but also taking into account estimated resource losses, coal opportunity costs, higher discount rates and a range of possible growth forecasts."

This reminds me, Mr. Speaker, and you must be aware — and the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will concur in this, because I heard him say it the other day — that Hydro's forecasts of future energy requirements have been consistently high and consistently wrong. In fact, the B.C. Energy Commission's forecasts have been, at least, more accurate. A one percentage point difference of a high estimate could lead to multimillion-dollar unwarranted projects being proceeded with. I think that's the type of project I'm discussing here at the moment.

Just for the record as well, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that many regional districts and environmental groups asked for moratoriums — not that the project be scrapped, but for moratoriums until at least some of the recommendations in the Shaffer report be looked at. The fact is that Hydro proceeded arbitrarily in spite of the fact.... They knew that this government was going to bring in an energy policy for the future of British Columbia. Now they were pretty slow about it. I think they waffled around for about 14 months and had something like nine drafts before they finally brought in the so-called policy. And it's an extremely disappointing policy, Mr. Speaker. It is really disappointing, because it's not really a policy at all, as a matter of fact. It is perhaps better than nothing, but not much of a policy. What I'm suggesting is that the least Hydro could have done in this case was wait until the B.C. Utilities Commission, as outlined in this policy paper, was effectively in operation and the necessity of that proposed project could have been examined by that body.

While we're discussing this paper, Mr. Speaker, I might add that B.C. Hydro, as you are well aware, announced an increase in hydro rates, which in my view the government should have immediately put a moratorium on, through their board of directors, until the Utilities Commission is formed and has had a chance to examine those rate increases. I'm a bit alarmed that this government is already backtracking on its announced energy policies in terms of the policy announced through this paper, and that they've already said: "We're going to allow small hydro projects to proceed without going through the proposed B.C. Utilities Commission." Small projects? What's a small project? I don't know. The Revelstoke dam? Is that a small project? Site C? Is that a big project, a small project, or what? How do they define a small project? I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources just walked in, and I know he's going to read Hansard tomorrow and take all of my recommendations here to heart.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Twenty megawatts. Well, we get the press releases about a week after you get them to the papers. In any event, the government, in my view, is already backtracking on its announced policies.

By the way, they still haven't really made a clear statement, as far as I am aware, on the proposed Kemano II project, the Stikine-Iskut project, and these are matters that will be raised in estimates, I'm sure. I hope the Minister of Energy, when he speaks in this debate, will address himself to some of these problems.

Getting back to the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you're aware by now that on this billion dollar project, most of the jobs are not going to go to British Columbians. As a matter of fact, Hydro's own report states that about $10.5 million of this billion dollar project will go in wages to British Columbians, about 1 percent of a billion-dollar program. The rest will go to people outside of the country — to Italians, Japanese and the Norwegian firm which is going to be laying the pipeline utilizing their own personnel. They are purchasing their steel, for example, from back east and from other suppliers around the world. The cable is being supplied from outside the country. In fact, the vessel itself which will be laying the line is coming from Norway.

So what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there are going to be relatively few benefits in terms.... You know, the fact is we have a lot of skilled people in the IBEW here, for example, who are fully qualified to work on this project, in my view. I would hope that the minister, in his next board meeting with Hydro, will draw this to their attention and tell the board of directors at Hydro that we're British Columbians first. Okay?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My colleague says they tell him. But he's a new member; he's only been there six weeks. He'll learn.

Upward and onward here. While we're on about energy, Mr. Speaker, one more item. I'm going to talk about self-serve gasoline stations for a minute. It's a favourite topic of mine, and I'm kind of low-key about it. We used to have a member on the other side of the House who spent a great deal of time on this whole topic of the multinationals in control of this resource. But he's not here anymore, although I did see him in the precincts this afternoon.

The fact is, I'm going to cite some examples to show we now have a situation in British Columbia where the multinational oil companies pretty well have a monopoly on, and control of, that particular resource from the wellhead to the pump. That's what we have in British Columbia today. The last time I discussed this matter in this House, I was told by the then Minister of Energy that they have considered legislation but they didn't feel like putting in legislation, so they were going to put out some guidelines. Those guidelines have been around for almost two years. I'm just guessing — approximately two years, Mr. Speaker. What has happened as a result of those guidelines put out by the present government? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, except that a whole lot

[ Page 1598 ]

of independent service stations have closed down because of the self-serves down the street.

You can imagine, particularly in the smaller communities, what happens when they put in two or three self-serves. One example I have here, in writing and all the figures, is of an independent who is purchasing his gasoline supply at the same price the self-serve down the street is selling it for. As a result of that, naturally he lost most of the gasoline-selling portion of his business. Fortunately this particular fellow, in business for himself — and I think he wrote to you guys last time and he isn't going to anymore — has another portion of the business, the mechanical portion, which pretty well supports him and will keep him going. But his supplier is now cutting him off and is taking away his credit card privileges and he has to take down his great big Esso sign and all of these things because he isn't selling enough gas, because they opened a self-serve up the street from him and they are getting all the business. He has to sell at a higher price than the self-serve because he is buying that gas at the same price the self-serve is selling it. It doesn't make sense.

So what I am suggesting at this time, and we'll get into this in the estimates debates with the Minister of Energy, is that between now and that debate, the minister will have plenty of time to finally bring in legislation to control those multinationals, to bring them to heel. Let the little guys have a fighting chance. Do you realize that every time an independent has to close his gas station because of a self-serve, five people are put out of work, on an average, throughout the province? Mr. Speaker, I thought I would just raise that while we were discussing energy and energy policy papers — and I didn't see anything in the minister's energy policy paper relating to that particular topic.

I have a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I thought, perhaps, I would discuss highways. Yesterday the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) spoke, and quite well, about highways and other matters, but he spent a large part of his speech fighting the 1975 election campaign. One of the things he said that bothered me quite a bit was, first of all, that our party had no policy. And he notices that the MLAs from this side of the House are continually contacting him or his ministry regarding highway projects in their ridings. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I thought that's what one of the functions of an MLA was. That minister knows as well as anybody else in the House that for every letter or telephone call that most of us receive in terms of health care, social services or whatever, we receive four to five letters on a road problem, a highway problem, a culvert or what have you. And the fact is, I would think, that any MLA who didn't contact that minister or ministry when he had a problem in his riding, dealing with highways, would be negligent in his duties. But that still doesn't excuse the government for 25 percent overruns, or whatever the heck it was, in a single year for political purposes.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And most of it in Williams Lake, my colleague says. I don't know — not all of it, but some of it. Highway 22 is mostly in the minister's riding.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, no, you're wrong. You're wrong again, Mr. Member for wherever you are — out of your seat, but that's all right. I didn't realize you'd just made cabinet, but congratulations.

In any event, what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, in no way detracts from my premise that the function of government — and the reason a government is elected, in my view — is to look after people who can't look after themselves, the unemployed, the young people who can't find employment, our native Indian people, all of these people. I've stood in this House before and said that perhaps that $115 million overrun, by special warrant, would have been better spent on some of these programs. That doesn't mean that we should stop highway programs in this province. In fact, a large part of those surpluses that they like to brag about are there because we were the government between '72 and '75; otherwise they wouldn't be there. Some of those surpluses should be going to the topics I've just mentioned — social services for people. Services for people are what I'm talking about, and I resent it when I hear that kind of comparison made. I know we're going to have a great deal of time to discuss highway programs in the debate of the estimates — months, one member says.

While the minister is in the House, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell him that this morning I received another phone call from the Sunshine Coast Regional District. They're very concerned that this government, as a result of a meeting held yesterday in that area by B.C. Ferry Corporation people, are going to once again increase the fares throughout the whole coast of British Columbia and remove residential commuter cards from people living on the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, Texada and the Gulf Islands. I suspect this government would make that move tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it politically. I know that the minister is under a great deal of pressure from people within the corporation and elsewhere to increase fares and take away commuter privileges for people living in those areas.

But I want to go on record right now, Mr. Speaker, as saying that if that comes about, the people that I represent, the people who contact me on these issues — a pretty serious issue — are going to be extremely angry and upset, and it's going to cost the government more politically, as we recall the horrendous doubling of fares in 1976. So when the minister gets up to reply — and I hope the minister will make a public statement soon regarding his intentions on residential commuter cards and fare increases.... We know now that they're going to increase the fares on the Seattle-Victoria route. I suspect that the government is going to give its okay, and we're going to be facing a 25 percent to 30 percent fare increase late this spring. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

MR. BRUMMET: The ridiculous motions having been dispensed with, it certainly is a pleasure to finally have an opportunity to speak in favour of this wonderful budget — even if it is at this exciting part of the day. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you are fascinated, as many of us are, with the way we in this House can use the same figures to come up with so many different observations. I'm sure that is what must keep you awake.

In this debate this government has been subjected to criticisms of having no long-range plan, no development program, and that our budget simply consists of impulsive spending. I suppose if you take the $200 million mortgage relief program as impulsive spending, then yes.... It was

[ Page 1599 ]

recognized that there was a soft spot in our building program. There was a definite need for housing and the lumber industry could stand a little incentive, so that move was made. Of course, it created quite a number of jobs — I think the estimate is something like 8,000 jobs — to carry us through and to provide a sample of what can be done with an imaginative program. Of course, what the opposition would not like us to recognize is that the money was there for that program.

The long-range plan by this government was fairly and clearly enunciated in 1976 after they came back into power in this province. We had a general long-range plan. Certainly a number of the specifics and details have been adjusted to meet the changing times and conditions. Of course, the NDP have been attacking details and looking for flaws. The long-range plan was to return responsible financial management to the province of British Columbia. It took courage, it took planning, and it took faith in the free enterprise system that it could accomplish this. It took courage to stand up and raise the ferry rates. Even in our constituency of North Peace River we heard rumblings that this would wipe out the Island's tourist trade. Unfortunately for that opposition....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: We read up there as well, and so do many people in the province. They read the reports of the tourism industry. It kept growing and growing. Being relatively new to Victoria.... It seems to me I find statements in the press saying that this month is not good compared to the main tourist season, but for the month of February it is fantastic. In other words, what used to be the main season.... Now the off-season has become almost as good.

Certainly the statistics I have read say that tourism has grown throughout British Columbia. Some members question this, so I'm prepared with the figures. Let's pick it up at '76; I really don't want to get into the 1974-75 years. The amount of revenue brought in by the tourist industry in 1976 was $1.18 billion; 1977, $1.345 billion; 1978, $1.552 billion; 1979, $1.69 billion; projected for 1980, $1.85 billion. You might question the projection. Never mind the projection. Certainly the facts are there.

I don't have the figures for Vancouver Island, but I'm sure they would compare quite favourably with this. From 1977 the guesstimate is 20 million; from 1978 it is 23 million, up 15 percent; and the estimate for 1979 over 1978 is up 20 percent. So I really don't think we can say that tourism almost folded up. Of course, we were told by the opposition: "That's luck." But I think it took a fair amount of promotion, fixing of the highways and making those people feel welcome, to bring that tourist trade back up.

I can remember the ICBC rates being raised to try and straighten out that mess. There were great prophecies of doom and gloom, that this would really collapse the economy, and so on. But it put that business on a workable footing, and it certainly has made excellent progress since. Once you are operating it properly, then it can operate. They say: "We did it. " They introduced it, yes; but if you drew a graph of that, we would be off the graph now — we would be in the China syndrome, as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) pointed out to us yesterday.

I also recall the great feelings about the sales tax being raised, that this would destroy the economy of British Columbia. Yet certainly the budget we have seen shows us that we have prospered from that. Once the mess was straightened up we could lower the tax again and make it possible for people to prosper.

So as I said, it took courage, planning and faith. The budget we have been presented with has certainly shown us that our plan did work and is working. That is why this opposition is not really discussing our planning or this budget. They talk about a lot of other things. One of the interesting things, of course, is that the opposition, now that things are back on a good financial footing, want to get in on it again. They want to cash in; they want to give away money; they want to get back into their irresponsible management. They can't seem to understand that the revenue must be coming in before you can spend it and hand it out.

However, they are obligated to speak against the budget. Since they can't find fault with the good financial position that this province is in, and they can't really find fault with the progress the economy of this province has made, and they can't say our plan didn't work, what can they do? They can carefully select specific situations — yes, the flaws and the weak spots; in any system there are flaws and weak spots. Do they help us? No. They use examples of individual tragedies as weapons. We, too, have individual tragedies in our ridings. But as a responsible representative my job is to try to see that those are cured, not to bring those people's names into the public limelight in order to use that as a weapon. I certainly don't try to draw general inferences from isolated, specific situations.

We have heard before — this is not an original thought — that government does not produce its own money, that government simply handles the public money. Really, I suppose, the difference in opinion between this side and that side of the House is how that money should be handled. I don't think that a surplus is any kind of a sin. Many good things have been made possible in this province because of a surplus. The opposition tries to give the impression that we use that surplus to put it in a sock, hoard it or something of that nature. Every year careful thought is given to how to use this money which is generated beyond our fondest dreams because of our programs, how to use this money most effectively to — as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said — give it back to the people of British Columbia. So the surplus is being used.

Mr. Speaker, on the budget highlights sheet we had such items as additional spending of $353.2 million from revenue surplus and tax cuts totalling $54 million. Is this what the members of the opposition are speaking against — the provision of economic stimulus? Are they talking against the forestry program? The previous speaker, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), seemed to say either that it's not enough, or that it probably won't happen, or that it shouldn't happen, or something of that nature; but he seemed to be concerned about it.

How, much money would be spent on forest management now, Mr. Speaker, if we had followed the patterns set by that chart that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) showed us yesterday? In three short years they brought that chart down to a negative situation and negative funding. And what would have happened if that pattern had continued? So I think that, whatever criticisms they offer at the money that is being spent on forest management, whether it would be enough or not enough, is certainly.... What would they have done?

I think that member also said something about "only"

[ Page 1600 ]

$6.5 million for research and development, and he was not happy with that — that was an insignificant amount. Now when "only" $6.5 million for research and development becomes an insignificant amount, which would not have been available under that government or under that group, then certainly we have to wonder what would be a significant amount.

A few figures, Mr. Speaker, will give you some example. We've been criticized about overtaxing, and yet if you look at the chart of B.C. government revenues from "The Medium-Term Economic Outlook," which was just released by the Ministry of Finance, the portion of revenue for the province that comes from provincial taxation went down from 1976, when it produced 56.6 percent of the revenue, to 49.9 percent in 1979-80. In other words, the taxes coming from people are going down. In 1976-77, 18.3 percent of the revenue came from social services tax; 11.5 percent in 1979-80. From natural resources, we were getting 13.5 percent of the revenue in 1976; it's now up to 23.4 percent. That's what the policies of this government have done — much more money is coming from our natural resources. And if you want to take another one, contributions from other governments were 18.6 percent in 1976 and 23 percent in 1979-80 — so again, we're getting that.

Getting back to, say, the money that's coming from the production of our natural resources, much has been said about their B.C. Petroleum Corporation, that they invented the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and I don't think we can deny that; history records that. But I would like to point out that even the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, under their reign, would probably have been losing money for the province instead of making it, because they were running out of gas. It is because of the management, because of the policies of this government, that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation has produced a lot of revenue, not because of their management.

Comparing revenues to expenditures, Mr. Speaker — again, quoting from the same report — here are just a couple of examples to make the point: in government services, 10.1 up to 10.9 percent — what I would call an insignificant increase, but that's a matter of judgment; in transport and communications we've gone from 10.4 to 10.5 percent — you might say the same; In health and social services, however, 38.8 percent in '76-77, 40.5 percent predicted for '80-81 or, if you like, 40.7 percent in '79-80. And you can use any one of the charts to draw the same parallel.

Another point: no reduction in taxes? This year's budget shows a reduction of almost $54 million, and added to that, measures that were introduced in the last couple of years take $30.6 million out of direct taxation. So the people of British Columbia are better off, they are paying lower taxes, and they are getting more from the development and production of industry.

I'd like to get, perhaps, a bit more specific as to how this budget affects our area — the budget's benefits in the northeast. Of course, we have industry booming in that area because of the free-enterprise system. We can use a lot of figures, but oil and gas is certainly booming; agriculture is up — the best year ever; lumbering is up, despite the breakdowns in the rail transportation system; tourism is up; coal development is up. Anywhere you want to turn, the industry is booming. Population is also booming. Just using something that perhaps I'm familiar with, as evidence of that, recently the Education Today statistics were put out by the Ministry of Education, and in School District 60, which encompasses Fort St. John and the southern portion of North Peace River, in 1979 there were 5,953 students — that was last year's actual figures. Projections for 1985 are 7,517; for 1990 they are 9,177. That is a significant increase, particularly in view of the fact that in many other parts of the province the school enrolments are going down.

In School District 81, the Fort Nelson area, a similar pattern is shown: from 1,196 to 1,583 in the next ten years. Even in the Stikine district the 588 pupils in 1979 are projected to go up to 644 in 1985 and 718 in 1990. Compare that to, say, Vancouver — 58,000 down to 49,000; Victoria — 24,000 down to 19,000; Kamloops — 18,000 down to 16,000. Some of the areas in the Fraser Valley, the more rural areas, will be going up. Those figures come from the B.C. research department for the Ministry of Education.

Facilities are expanding in our area: sports facilities; medical facilities; water systems; cultural amenities; recreational parks; transportation — the highways are growing; airports; B.C. Rail; and communications, I would hope. For instance, the surplus makes it possible to remove some of the debt from B.C. Rail, making it a much more viable operation.

This budget allows for $70 million for that debt reduction. It also allows for another $14 million for upgrading that line. Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I'm going to say it again: that I do not consider a cost to this province; that is an investment for this province, and all of us up there know it.

I might make the point, Mr. Speaker, that for North Peace River I want additional facilities. I want additional services for my people. I want transportation — improved roads, highways, etc. I want better communication systems. I would like to think that out of this surplus I can get for my people up the highway, north of Fort Nelson, who do not have any radio or TV reception of any kind.... I would like to think "thank heaven for this surplus." I'm going to be asking for that and pushing for some money for communications. I want development for my area. I'll even try and get some for the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), because he's against development in his area. I want better amenities. I want better opportunities for our people. Our people aren't asking for handouts; they're wanting opportunities. They want some of the same amenities that we experience here in the southern part of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in order to get some of these things it depends on population growth. We have to have some numbers to warrant that. Population growth in turn depends on some industrial development. This is where the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and I differ considerably. He wants roads; he wants communications; he wants services; he wants the same things I want. However, I recognize that we have to have some development. We can't just say to the province: "Stay out of our bush but give us all these things." In other words, we have to produce. And we do produce a great amount in the northeast area. In spite of that member, with any luck at all they may end up producing a great deal from the Atlin riding as well.

I'm standing against industrial development; I'm not standing against hydro development. I want to protect the environment, but I also realize that there is a reality one has to face: if we want some development we must also contribute. We know that with prosperity we get some problems: we have shortages of staff and we have difficulty in getting enough doctors and dentists — all of these things. But I would far rather we were somewhat behind in these needs

[ Page 1601 ]

than that there be no need for them. That is why I stand for development and progress.

This budget encourages private development. It cuts taxes, provides more funds. Let me make a point, Mr. Speaker, on this business of development. I'll do one that affects us quite a bit, the oil and gas industry. We have a thing known as lease sales. We had a lease sale in January that brought $37 million revenue to this province and another $25 million in February. The next sale is coming up at the beginning of April. That's $63 million already this year, and that is all revenue to the province. And why are they spending this $63 million? For the right to spend money to develop in this province.

I don't have the figures as to just how much the oil companies spend up there, but let us take Canadian Hunter, which is going into the Nechako area. They spent about half a million dollars — $498,000 and some — for the right to explore on those lands. That half a million dollars that they spent enables them to project expenditures over the next few years of another $27 million in exploration. Now if that isn't job creation, if that doesn't help, then I don't know what does. Half a million dollars they pay for the right to spend another $27 million. That same company, in the last five years in British Columbia, which means in our area, has spent $145 million on exploration and development. That's a Canadian company. Another company is Wainoco, which has its headquarters, incidentally, in Fort St. John; another is Dome Petroleum. All of these companies are spending millions of dollars in our area just to develop it. Yes, they're looking for a profit, they're looking for a buck....

AN HON. MEMBER: No guarantees.

MR. BRUMMET: No, they don't have any guarantees. That $27 million that Canadian Hunter spends could get them back nothing in return. So when they make two dollars for every one that they spend, later on down the road they need that. That group, in mining as we know, and so on, sort of said: "Well, if you make a dollar we want 90 cents of it."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ninety-nine cents!

MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'm being generous.

What about the money these people spend? In other words, they might spend $100 million on drilling, and $60 million of it may be dry holes. So they have to have an incentive. Could you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that if the $145 million, and the $27 million that Canadian Hunter alone has spent, was spent out of tax money by this government, that would cut down services? So we have to have that kind of development from the private industry. We talk about pipelines; they're our concern. Right now — and I know this is humourous to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — I believe it was in the Sierra Yoyo area, the Junior Sierra pipeline is being built, 84 miles of pipeline at a cost of millions of dollars.

You hear in this part of the country about the great Alaska Highway gas pipeline, which has about 444 miles of its route in British Columbia. I wonder how many people here are aware that in this year alone the various companies in that area are building about 500 miles of gas pipeline. The only difference with the other one is that it's bigger. And so, Mr. Speaker, in my area, this budget provides for further funds for the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson road or the Liard Highway as it's known. We need funds, we're getting those funds, and that will generate funds, because that opens up an awful lot of logging country, it opens up more oil and gas country on a year-round basis, and it creates jobs — the road-building plus all the industries that that generates. We have the Clark Sierra road, the Yoyo road as it's known. There are three fields there: the Clark, the Sierra and the Yoyo field, and this road provides an all-weather route. In other words, it has expanded the oil and gas industry over the period of a year. That, by this year's budget, is getting another $1.8 million. Already that's generating more jobs. The Sierra junior line would never have been built if they couldn't look forward to a proper road access.

So we're getting more spending, more lease sales and more drilling; it's cyclical. If you want figures, there's plenty of evidence available. These lease sales end up generating seismic work; that seismic work ends up generating drilling; and the program goes on. All of that generates revenue for the province of British Columbia. I am pleased this government is in a financial position to provide that type of development for our area. Ironically, particularly for that opposition, they stopped all that spending when they were in power; and of course that stopped the generation of revenue coming into the coffers. Yes, they can promise all the wonderful services — medical, social and everything else that they would have done — but how would they have paid for them if the money wasn't coming in?

I could quote a lot more in the way of figures to provide evidence of what is happening there. But I would like to at least state that there are some what I call axiomatic relationships: to provide services you require funds; to acquire funds you require sources; to acquire sources of revenue you require production and sales; and to have production you need industry — and you need profitable industry, so let's not be ashamed of that; and to develop profitable industries you require the proper climate and incentives. That gets results. To provide good services over the long run requires an assured source of funds; this budget does that and does it admirably well.

As I said, where would ICBC be now under their pattern of deficit financing? Where would the B.C. Petroleum Corporation be when all the gas companies had moved out? Would they have really shut down all the hydro development? Certainly they seemed to be against any hydro development — or is that just talk? Would they pick it up again?

In conclusion, I would like to ask: when the socialists speak against this budget, are they speaking against the highway spending? If they are speaking against this $100 million extra that's being spent for highways....

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell).

MR. BRUMMET: I know, and there are a number of others that have said this was an extravaganza.

I would like to ask: will they stand on their principles, Mr. Speaker? Will they steadfastly refuse any of that bad money for their constituency? Will they stand on that? When they are against money being spent for tourist promotion, do they resist tourists coming to their own area? When they speak against surplus revenues, do they reject funds for their own ridings? Talk about inflationary spending!

That member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is against it. He said this budget was inflationary, and we should give the

[ Page 1602 ]

money back to the individual taxpayers. Does that mean that he doesn't want the port of Prince Rupert developed? Do the members from Vancouver not want the stadium developed? Do they not want that B.C. Place developed? If you don't want it, send it up to the North Peace River. We could use even a fraction of that. We'll take it. That B.C. Place — the amount of money that this government is investing, as I see it, is only seed money for the type of job-building it will generate. Are those members, when they speak against these surpluses, against the spending for B.C. Rail? Are they against the forestry management? Are they against the $55 million for public transport subsidy? Are they against all of these? They speak against many of these things.

Mr. Brummet moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to a question on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

APPENDIX

8 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

Upon his death in mid-1975, a B.C. logger of some 50 years tenure left in his will the sum of $141,697.65 to the Province of British Columbia to be used in helping others. The donor was Dan Matijevich who died at the age of 75. As a so-called "urgent" move, according to OIC 2859 of November 9, 1978, the said sum was turned over to the B.C. Forest Foundation, excluding interest accrued, for the establishment of a B.C. Forest Hall of Fame:

1. Will the Minister assure the House the donation is being spent according to the donor's wishes?

2. As there is presently no such society, or place as the B.C. Forest Hall of Fame, will the Minister explain the "urgency" for turning over the $141,697.65 to the B.C. Forest Foundation?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"1. Mr. Matijevich's bequest to the Government of the Province of British Columbia was for the Government's own use with the expression that he hoped his gift may help other people in British Columbia.

"For the information of the House, the following constitutes the Board of Directors of the B.C. Forest Foundation who will exercise their judgment in the expenditure of this fund so generously bequeathed to the people of British Columbia:

Board of Directors —

Kenneth M. Bagshaw, Barrister and Solicitor, Ladner Downs.

W.G. Burch, Vice-President, British Columbia Forest Products.

D.G. Evans, Corporation Communications Manager, British Columbia Forest Products.

Victor Heath, British Columbia Institute of Technology.

Mrs. Lucille M. Johnstone, Vice-President, Administration, Riv-Tow Straits Ltd.

D.A.S. Lanskail, President, Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia.

J.D. Little, Vice-President, Northwood Pulp and Timber Co. Ltd.

J.D. Maitland, Chairman, Hastings West Investment Ltd.

Walter Maughan, Secretary, Hastings West Investment Ltd.

F.H. Moonen, Vice-President, Government Affairs, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.

W.D. Moore, President, W. D. Moore Logging Company.

[ Page 1603 ]

J.J. Munro, President, I.W.A. Regional Council No. l, International Woodworkers of America.

Peter Pearse, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics, University of British Columbia.

Landis Keehn Smith, Ministerial Assistant, Communications, to the Minister of Forests.

Ben Thompson, President, Local 1-71, International Woodworkers of America.

W.M. Young, Chief Executive Officer, Finning Tractor and Equipment Co. Ltd.

Randolph B. Zien, Barrister and Solicitor, Ladner Downs.

"2. The urgency of paying Mr. Matijevich's bequest to the B.C. Forest Foundation was to allow the investment of these funds at interest once the appropriate application of the funds had been established. The Government had no statutory authority to make payment of interest to the credit of the bequest while it was held in the consolidated revenue fund. The value of the deposit at March 17, 1980, was reported to be $161,670.40."