[ Page 4633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 4633

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4636

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4641

Mr. Barnes –– 4645

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: M. le président, ça me fait beaucoup de plaisir ce matin d'avoir l'occasion d'introduire aux membres de l'assemblée et de souhaiter bienvenu à notre province son excellence Pierre Maillard, l'ambassadeur de la France au Canada; et avec son excellence M. Paul Bazin, consul-général de la France à Vancouver et M. Robert Jany, délégué de commerce de la France à Vancouver aussi.

MR. MACDONALD: M. l'orateur, je voudrais aussi dire bienvenu aux grandes âmes de la France là-bas.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning are Mr. and Mrs. Brown and their daughter Kelly. Patti works downstairs in the Legislative dining room, and she figured she'd come up this morning and see how the rest of us make a living. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, Little Red is here today. Please welcome her.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I would like to extend a very warm welcome also, in just plain old homespun British Columbia English, to His Excellency and his staff. I would also like to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on his French presentation. I just hope we never have any Eskimos here; we may be in difficulty. But it's nice to see you try.

We're debating the budget of our government for the year 1981 –– I won't repeat what has been said in terms of our support for this budget and our pride in a Minister of Finance who has had the courage to stand with reality and to listen to the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, in the constituency I represent and in the many times I have travelled around this province — not in the back rooms, Sir, but in the front with the people who are working in this province — I have been impressed by the number of young people and people of all ages who have said that we simply cannot enjoy a high life today and leave future generations to pay for it.

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, is one of the most prosperous and politically stable provinces, and it is economically attractive for investment centres of the world today. That did not just happen; that happened because of the ability of this Minister of Finance, our Premier in the first instance and our government to come to grips with reality, to recognize — unlike the hon. members of the opposition — that there is no free lunch in the world today. We do a great disservice if we load future generations with our high-living costs of today and also if we do not help them understand the realities of everyday living. We spend a fortune on education in this province, and surely part of the benefits from that fortune will come in the returns of having future citizens who are not only capable but responsible.

Mr. Speaker, young people are very realistic today. They sense very quickly any phoniness in an approach to them in terms of friendship, economics or philosophy. This government has won the respect of the young people in this province and we intend to maintain that respect, not through any phony giveaway theories, phony unrealistic philosophies or an effort to deliberately mislead them. We will have discussions with them and from time to time they may be very much toe to toe, but we respect them and we know that they respect us and this budget. That's one of the many reasons I am proud to be representing the people of Okanagan North, who are working people whether they are members of the municipal employee force, lawyers, farmers or shopkeepers, whether they happen to be manager or employee at Consumers Glass Co., an international corporation, or whether in fact they happen to be operating a handicraft centre out of their basement.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House and the people in the constituency I represent do not like references to and manipulation of such a word as "class," and trying to segregate people into classes. When I grew up in British Columbia, certainly there were many things of which we were unaware. Perhaps we were less sensitive in terms of shifting people when we didn't intend to. But I have to assure you that maturity developed, and it wasn't until we got some of these misplaced class-conscious people from other areas, who wanted to come to British Columbia and enjoy, the freedoms, benefits and challenges of British Columbia, that we heard the word "class." I suggest the word "class," in reference to people, should be ruled out of the vocabulary in this Legislature and in British Columbia. We are all workers in this province, every one of us. We are all dedicated to doing what is right for those who are less fortunate, and all dedicated to ever-extended freedoms and opportunities for our people, and this is reflected in this budget.

I would like to turn, for a moment, to the ministry for which I have the responsibility, and in so doing, I would like to say what a challenging year it has been for me and my family, and what an exciting year it has been in terms of getting to know the industry and the accomplishments that we together as a team, be it union, management, government.... In this past year we have introduced many innovations, and we have many more in preparation and on the drawing-board. I'm sure that members on the opposite side now have some interest in tourism, although it was slow in coming. When they were government they did everything they could to dissuade tourists, from lack of development of transportation services, whether the railway or roads, or in terms of the image and reputation of British Columbia outside our province, either economically or socially. They seem to have seen the light, if not in this House or on the hustings certainly in an area called investment.

I would like to make reference to my critic, the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), a very jolly gentleman and a man with whom I've shared many discussions over the years. But I must say, I've been disappointed. When I first became minister I extended a letter to all members of the opposition to please forward their ideas or to feel comfortable to come in at any time to discuss them. Some members have — the hon. member from the north end of Vancouver Island has and one or two others — but the critic didn't, and I find that rather disappointing. I'd just like to have coffee with him. Even if he doesn't have any constructive ideas, perhaps I can help him.

I admire his right to make his own choices. What disturbed me, in terms of both his presentation in this House and the obvious non-leadership that he's giving to his members in terms of our industry, is that he has not yet shown even a

[ Page 4634 ]

glimmer of understanding of our industry, its complexities, nor the highly competitive nature in which we find ourselves in the world today. In this House I have heard not one word of encouragement or one iota of insight into the developments taking place in this province that will strengthen and help this vital industry to grow — very positive steps. We have heard nothing but negativism. In fact, when I review the record, there has been little said about tourism except the carping on particular points, which baffled me in the initial stages and which I've thought about during the year, but the purpose of which is now becoming much more clear as the actions of the NDP in British Columbia evolve. We all want to divorce ourselves from self-interest, and I'm sure that would relate to this industry.

The hon. member for Surrey, my critic, discussed the hotel tax yesterday, and I listened very carefully to his comments. I had been waiting for them, and I appreciate them. But was there any understanding of the third-largest industry in British Columbia, with the greatest potential for growth, with the greatest potential to provide jobs for the largest cross-section of age and capacities of our citizens, to increase revenues and to build hospitals, schools and human resources services, which take a major portion of our budget today in this province? No, there was not. Was there any effort on his part to enthuse the industry? This industry must have service and it must provide facilities, but it is fun. No matter what its internal concerns are, it must always project a happy, positive and very welcoming image. We market fun. When people come to a country for a holiday — and I'm sure His Excellency the Ambassador would state this.... They don't market Paris on its shortcomings; they market Paris on its history and romance and the excitement of its people. I might add it has a fairly high hotel tax, and it's been very successful. That's what we want from the opposition; it is their role not to carp and criticize negatively but to analyze positively, offer constructive suggestions and to be part, in this instance, of this very dynamic industry.

Mr. Speaker, our industry has received special attention this year since the establishment of an independent ministry. We are the first jurisdiction in the world ever to recognize that tourism is a basic resource. Our Premier and our government made this designation this year, which puts tourism on the most important economic development committees of this province. It puts tourism in a position where we recognize that we must nurture interest and guide its development every bit as carefully as we must our forestry or our water resources. We must be ever mindful of our own citizens' rights in our community and that they themselves are a very important part of the tourist industry, because they are the hosts and hostesses in our province. As hosts and hostesses they too, in welcoming our visitors, want to share in the enjoyment of those attractions and activities, or in a sense a party. That is what this government is doing, the first in the world.

Mr. Speaker, in so doing and in allotting budget increases to help accomplish this, we want to leave the industry as much on its own initiative as we can. This industry must have a free and vital economy and social structure in which to function and to be successful. It must have individuality; it must have the sense of regional portrayal that we are getting in British Columbia. We have five dynamic and very different regions in this province — each with a different character. We must, as government, stay out of that industry as much as possible in order for that personal ability, imagination and character to come forth for our own citizens, so that you can have five distinctive holidays in British Columbia, if you are a citizen of British Columbia, as well as five distinctive opportunities if you come from other centres of Canada or other parts of the world. As such, Mr. Speaker, this industry is capable — and I believe will accept the challenge — of doing what it has been asked to do in this budget in terms of an increase in hotel taxes.

The hon. member should have said this and challenged them, rather than trying to help become weaker and help them to recoil to a corner and say: "Poor me." There is no room for that in this province, and there is no room for that attitude in this budget. In asking the industry to carry a greater share of the responsibility we must be, and have been, ever mindful that the industry itself must remain competitive, not only in the international markets but in the national market area. It is, and it can be, and it will be.

The hon. member suggested that this minister hadn't consulted with the industry. He's absolutely right. I have no intention of making some of the foolish mistakes that they — and he, as minister — made. I'm subject to dismissal from this Legislature if I consult the industry on any tax changes. I had no knowledge of any definite tax change that was coming in this budget, and I should not have had.

However, if you listen — which is a very uncommon practice of those on the other side — to what the Premier and this government have been saying about international monetary situations, the economic structure and changes that are taking place in the world today; to what our government, our Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and our Premier have been saying at first ministers' conferences, and what our Minister of Finance has been saying about the constitutional issue in Canada.... It is not Ottawa-bashing. The constitutional issue in Canada is going to affect the lives of every man, woman and child in this province.

While the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations will be speaking directly on this, I'm sure, we have to narrow it down in this instance to the fact that it is dollars. The new policy of the government of Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, is to change the financial arrangements and cost-sharing programs with the provinces and load ever more burden on the provincial taxpayer, while at the same time he says: "I don't need the west; I just need its money." And he garners a very major share of the federal financing from British Columbia. That is going to affect the pockets of every British Columbian. There is no magic tree. There is no magic formula. Unless you're a socialist who is going to print money, you have to earn it. Mr. Speaker, that's what we're doing.

I spoke on the constitution to the hotel industry, at the motels and campgrounds convention, and at the regional conventions and seminars. I said to them: "You may wonder why, but let me tell you, as your minister, I have a responsibility to alert you to what is happening in Canada and the effect that it's going to have." I feel quite clearly that I did my duty to this industry, and I believe the industry will acknowledge it.

When we get into my estimates I'll give concrete examples as to why I believe, in supporting this budget and this Minister of Finance, that we will be competitive. The two-tier tax system was brought in very specifically to try to avoid an excessive burden on the smaller operation, the family operation, and the second tier was to recognize that hotel rooms which are over $50, of which there is a minority in

[ Page 4635 ]

British Columbia, could, with careful management and aggressive marketing, be competitive and afford to carry that extra contribution to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, there may be a minor problem in terms of one or two tour operators, but when we discuss this subject we have to analyze all aspects. What sort of business practices are we involved in? Is it not traditional throughout the world? I have been fortunate because I've worked hard to do a fair amount of travelling, not at the taxpayers' expense but before I ever became a minister. But everywhere I went, whether it was in Europe, South America or the Caribbean, I always paid "plus tax." I would think this is something we must be very mindful of when we are dealing in the international marketplace and when we are putting brochures in other countries: we must understand their consumer laws and recognize and practise sound business management. In this instance, it always indicates "plus tax." If you go on a cruise you pay your trip ashore, plus tax; you pay your cruise, plus tax. That is a prebooking charge.

I am meeting with the industry on many subjects, and I have consistently since the budget was brought down. We are examining any specific hardship that might be related because of a specific reason, but in total I want to encourage the industry to accept this challenge. At the same time, I would point out that there are measures in the budget to help the industry, such as the corporate income tax rebate rate on small businesses. This was reduced from 10 percent to 8 percent; this follows a reduction from 12 percent to 10 percent last year. This will benefit more than 50,000 small businesses in this province, many of whom are tourist related. The reduction in this will cost the government about $18.9 million.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we put the social service tax in perspective in British Columbia — and we raised ours to 6 percent — it is only Alberta, with its Heritage Fund and its current situation of prosperity, which isn't going to last forever and requires very prudent husbanding, in which there is no sales tax. Only Saskatchewan and Manitoba are 1 percent less, and we all know that Saskatchewan is living off the riches of uranium mining, which shows a split in the opposition, because they don't believe in uranium mining here. In Ontario they have a 7 percent sales tax; Quebec, 8 percent; News Brunswick, 8 percent; Nova Scotia, 8 percent; Prince Edward Island, 9 percent; and Newfoundland, 11 percent.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's up to 10 percent.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Member.

I won't relate the hotel taxes, but it has been said in here that Ontario, which is one of our keenest competitors, doesn't have a hotel tax. Today that is true, but that is only a one-year moratorium. I know it will interest you to know that that tax was 10 percent, and it has been stated that it will be reintroduced at 10 percent.

In British Columbia we do not tax restaurant meals, because we have tried to live within our philosophy that everybody should enjoy this opportunity. To go out for a hamburger or lunch is a very important thing for our homemakers and many people who don't get out on expense account lunches like that bunch over there. In British Columbia we do not have a sales tax on restaurant meals. In Manitoba they have a 5 percent tax; Ontario, 10 percent; Quebec, 10 percent; New Brunswick, 8 percent; Nova Scotia, 8 percent; Prince Edward Island, 9 percent; and Newfoundland, 11 percent. It's interesting that my critic doesn't bring this out when he's discussing this subject.

Without going into further detail of comparative taxes and room rates at this time, which I'll do later, I would like to discuss for a moment some of the aspects in the budget that are a direct boon to the British Columbia tourism industry. I notice there has been very little criticism from the opposition on the Victoria trade and convention centre. One must assume that they are supporting it. I find it rather interesting that there is support in Victoria but not in Vancouver. One must wonder why they are looking favourably upon a convention centre which will have $6 million involved during construction, $29 million in investments, $36 million addition to the provincial gross productivity, $18 million for Victorians themselves and 427 jobs related in the next few years. Obviously that's going to assist every hotel on Vancouver Island.

I notice that my time is drawing short, and I'm sorry, because I wish to point out the direct job-related effects of Whistler and the Vancouver trade and convention centre to those centres as well as to the province as a whole. I would just close by suggesting to those who would not read the budget properly that the Tourism budget this year is up substantially, along with the other major investments that have been made by this government in cooperation with the private sector in job creating, dollar creating and international investment for British Columbia. It gives us the ability to promote British Columbia in world markets as a much more attractive place to visit — but more importantly, to visit in the off-season and even more importantly, to stay longer. We must have these international generators if we are to compete and if our young people and people of all ages are to have the jobs this industry can supply.

In 1980 the budget for the Ministry of Tourism, when it was first created and I had the privilege to become its minister, was $12.5 million. That was a lift of $1.6 million or 14 percent in that budget. This year the 1981 budget is $14.8 million. That is an increase of $2.3 million, a lift of 18.4 percent — which I don't really want my colleagues to hear, but I know they'll be pleased to see. This means that every British Columbia resident is paying in the nature of $5.63 per year or 1.5 cents per day to assist in a proper and responsible role for this industry and to help British Columbia to compete. On the other hand, with tourism revenues receivable estimated at $2 billion next year, every resident could receive indirect benefits totalling about $751 per man, woman and child, or $2.50 per day. On the basis of marketing from responsibility and service, and this budget, I'd say that's a very, very healthy and attractive return. Those returns are not to be squandered, because when we measure this budget we don't, like the opposition, measure success by the number of dollars poured down the tube; we measure success on the basis of the effective use of those dollars.

As I mentioned, this budget is designed for the independence of the industry and for very careful and effective use of the taxpayers' dollars so that the revenues that I just spoke about will be available to build schools and hospitals and provide services for people. If I understand it correctly in my simple country way, that's what government is all about — not to suppress an industry and waste dollars, but to get maximum return while protecting the rights of our citizens.

Speaking of rights, it is interesting to think of the investment interests of the NDP, who have traditionally in British

[ Page 4636 ]

Columbia been dynamos at investing other people's money in order to play business. They don't invest their own money or live on a payroll and go out and get their hands dirty, but invest other people's money on things they don't have the courage to do themselves. If people want to go along with that in their own way, that's fine, but a number of questions arise with this type of investment. If one has public service responsibilities, does one become an objective critic if in fact there is a revenue return to one's direct associations? I don't know; maybe it can be done. If — heaven forbid — those involved in this sort of activity should ever become government, how does one then objectively lead research for and arbitrate a private sector industry or climate, when in fact there's a direct pipeline to their own pocket? Perhaps these things can be managed. It's not our way of doing things, but perhaps. One looks with interest at this type of investment and wonders about the shareholders and all those little two dollars that little old gentlemen and ladies have given in good faith. What sort of return will there be? It's just a point of interest. Of course, when one has the responsibility of being in government and being accountable, one has to examine criticism and leadership in the field very carefully, and the reasons it is there.

There is a recognition by the government in this budget of the major accomplishments and new innovations of last year, such as our international seminar, which saw hundreds of British Columbians in the industry from around the province speak formally and informally with 50 international authorities and specialists on tourism. Our tourism industry trade mission to Japan, which was the first of its kind in the history of Canada, was led by an independent minister of government — and, I would say, a woman at that. I'm very proud of the fact that this mission was considered so important to the development of this industry that we were honoured by having not only a lot of small operators, but that the small operators were working together with provincial management, unions and government.

These people paid their own way. The taxpayer of British Columbia did not pay for their participation, and we are very proud of this. The industry feels that the mission was so successful that I have a request for several more on my desk. Regardless of the carping and negativism of the opposition — efforts to smear and detract without foundation — those missions in the best interest of this industry and province will go ahead. As far as this industry is concerned, they'll not subtly destroy this industry by vested interest or through a grasp for power and trying to mislead the people of the province.

There is a major emphasis and recognition in this budget that if British Columbia pulls up its socks, tightens its perception and gets on with its marketing, it can become a major film production centre in North America. This budget reflects it, and we are making a major effort to help unite the talents of those with expertise in technical and production aids in this province who were in danger of being siphoned away by other areas. We have a special budgetary injection of $346,000, as opposed to $90,000 last year, to assist the industry to find its feet and see that British Columbians can benefit from a very exciting and potentially lucrative, non-polluting industry.

We have plans for regional seminars, which will assist people at the local level to have an opportunity to understand the role they can play and how they can take their operation and tie it into the marketers who are going to all parts of the world and who will join with us in terms of our overall promotion of British Columbia.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to speak on behalf of this industry, the people of this province, and those that I represent in favour of this budget, and to be able to bring to this Legislature such a positive report of the past role of this government in the tourism industry and the bright prospects for the future. I want to again congratulate the Minister of Finance. He's tough; at times you get toe to toe with him, but I believe he commands the respect of every British Columbian, and certainly our respect. The credit for his abilities must go to the Premier, who chose him in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget, and I am very grateful to live in British Columbia where its benefits are going to be received.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be a point of courtesy, if the minister needs more time to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member seeks the floor on a point of...?

MR. LEA: Well, we'd be willing to give the minister more time if she hasn't finished her speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing orders speak quite clearly on this matter.

MR. D’ARCY: I thought for a while that perhaps the hon. minister was the government's designated speaker in this debate, because I'm quite certain that I had not heard anything as succinct or as factual in support or description of the budget from that side of the House until that hon. member's speech. I felt it was one of the more effective efforts that we have heard from the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate you once again. I know you have been with us before in this session, before Christmas, but it is good to see you here and looking well.

Before I go into some of the main points I wish to make on the budget, I want to congratulate the government for a few of the items in the budget that I can support, particularly the increased assistance to such things as the infant development program and programs for the handicapped, and I'm going to get into other areas in which I feel some major improvements could have been made.

My main concern with this budget, however, is that I have simply not been satisfied by anything the minister had to say in his speech, or by anything any other member had to say, that the costs of delivering the government's programs in British Columbia, particularly those relating to health, social services and education, have risen, as the government claims, by $500 million over and beyond the effects of inflation in this province. I am not aware, for instance, that the costs of operating hospitals in B.C. have gone up beyond the overall inflation rate. I'm not convinced that the costs of paying teachers and support services in the school system and universities have gone up beyond the inflation rate, and there is no question that the delivery of social services in the province of B.C. has not gone up beyond the 10 percent or 11 percent inflation rate in British Columbia.

The size of the budget, Mr. Speaker, has increased by 18 percent. There is, therefore, a 7 percent or 8 percent increase in the budget over and beyond the inflation rate, and the

[ Page 4637 ]

Finance minister has not indicated why this is necessary, nor has he satisfied me or, I think, anyone else in this province, as to why government revenues, given the existing tax structure in the 1980-81 budget — that is the budget that runs out at the end of the month — could not continue to provide those services and programs, since the government is not providing new services and is not providing new programs. One can only assume that the government either intends to put away large sums of money for its big-ticket items or simply wishes to overtax the province of British Columbia, the people of B.C., for use later on.

Mr. Speaker, I must also mention that in the area of education there is no question that the government has continued to transfer costs, which in the past have been borne by the province of B.C., onto the local taxpayer, both through overt actions such as the school mill rate by government and also by simply not dealing with changes in the school tax sharing ratio brought on by assessment increases in British Columbia. I would point out that the effect of those assessment increases is in part due to the government's own real property taxation bill, which they brought in two or three years ago. I always find it rather laughable, if it weren't so tragic, when we hear the speakers from the other side complain from time to time about the terrible things Ottawa is alleged to be doing to the provincial treasuries when the federal government attempts to balance their own budget, when in fact the province of B.C. has been shifting cost burdens onto the local taxpayer for some years now.

By the way, I don't want anyone to assume that I condone some of these arbitrary acts by the federal government. Clearly those acts of transferring the federal share of funding programs onto the provinces can and do have an effect on the cost of provincial government operation in British Columbia.

I want to deal for a short time with the question of the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Not only does this involve the major fossil fuel that we have for industrial and domestic consumption in British Columbia, but it also involves the revenue to the government, the falling off of which the minister says is part of the cause of his having to increase taxes in British Columbia. We on this side of the House have long endorsed the idea that a fossil fuel such as natural gas, which is available to most homes and most industries in British Columbia, should, as far as possible, be made available to everyone. We have long considered that it is wrong to make some service available to residents who may live in Vancouver, Castlegar or Prince George and not have those services available to someone living on Vancouver Island.

I would also like to make it clear that I am very concerned about the apparent decision of government to deny industrial users on Vancouver Island a source of energy which is available to natural gas industrial users elsewhere in the province. There is absolutely no reason why some industries in certain parts of the province should be put at a competitive disadvantage with industries in the mainland or the interior.

I am also very much concerned that the government is not moving at all to take advantage of what few crumbs of offers the federal government makes to British Columbia. As limited and, in some ways, as impractical as it may seem, the federal minister has offered British Columbians a subsidy for assistance for conversion away from the domestic use of petroleum products to gas and possibly other types of energy in the home. While I realize that there are administrative problems in working out a program for this, the fact is that some five months have now passed and the provincial government has not moved to take advantage of the offer made by the federal government. I think it's incumbent on the province. We elect people to take advantage of programs when they are made available. We don't elect people to hide behind bureaucratic reasons as to why something is not easily taken advantage of.

The fact is that the federal government has made an offer and the provincial government should be moving with all deliberate speed, not wasting, time over a period of five months, not saying we have nothing to talk about. They should be moving quickly and with all deliberate speed to make that federal money available to the residents of British Columbia, rather than simply going out and giving speeches, nattering away in the House and pretending that it's always somebody else's fault that we don't realize the benefit of what limited federal programs are made available in British Columbia. The government of the day made an arbitrary decision....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it has been practice in this House that members who refer to any kind of offers or proposals are prepared to table those offers in the House. I'd just ask that at the conclusion of his speech the member table the information that he has for the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Minister. The appropriate time to draw that to anyone's attention would be at the conclusion of the member's speech.

MR. D’ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I happen to agree with the minister's point. I'd be delighted if he'd do his duty and explain to the House in due course why he is so incompetent as not to have arranged something with the federal government after five months. I'd like to see it in writing.

Before I became elected to this assembly, I had always assumed that when local, provincial or federal government was making a major decision — or even a minor one, for that matter — involving the expenditure of funds, they put the proposal out for open bidding. For the life of me I cannot understand why, when we have a question of major economic, environmental and resource-use importance, the question of how and where a natural gas pipeline was to be located and who was to build it to Vancouver Island could not have been put out to competitive bidding. Certainly the government receives competitive bids when they buy new dump trucks to sand and plough the highways. I would assume that they not only define their needs if they're buying, let's say, a consignment of typewriters, but they also put out to the private sector for bids to fulfil those needs.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government should not only have entertained bids, but it should have first defined the market area. I find it absolutely reprehensible that there is this kind of long-range public relations sparring as to whether or not certain parts of Vancouver Island, Howe Sound, theSun shine Coast and Powell River area should or should not have natural gas fossil fuel piped in. The government should have defined that clearly as the market area and then gone out to the public or private sector, wherever, and asked for competitive bids. Those bids should have been subjected to ruthless and rigid cross-examination by expert witnesses, not only on environmental matters but on economic matters and on the matters of what benefit is going to accrue and what

[ Page 4638 ]

costs are going to be put on to the province of British Columbia.

I don't believe that process would have taken a long time. I would point out that in all matters governments must not only do the right thing by the private and public sector, but they must appear to do the right thing. I think it absolutely reprehensible that the government did not give a chance to those bidders who wished a chance on this project. First of all the government should have exercised its executive power, which it has not yet, to define the market area — what industries and communities were going to be served — so that whoever wished to bid on that project would know absolutely what was going to be required if it were awarded the franchise. That has not happened to this day. I think that the government deserves to be condemned for that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He referred to Mr. Phillips of Westcoast as a nincompoop on the Webster program last night. Can you believe that?

MR. D'ARCY: I can only assume that Mr. Phillips may have contacted his legal adviser on that one. Mr. Phillips is a distinguished industrialist in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. I have absolutely no reason to believe that Mr. Phillips of Westcoast Transmission has ever shown bad business judgment on any matter. He certainly knows where he's coming from and where he's going. I think it very strange that the government is not prepared to take advantage of whatever expertise or benefits to this province this corporation would have to offer.

The final point I want to make on the question of the natural gas line to Vancouver Island is that we have never had, to my knowledge, an absolute turndown. Again, as with the home-conversion program, there has been a very limited offer by the federal government. There is no reason to believe that the federal government would not, because of the petroleum products which may be displaced on Vancouver Island in home use, commercial use and possibly in industrial use, have been prepared to negotiate to provide part funding for the proposal. But we find the government of B.C. simply saying: "No, we don't even want to talk to Ottawa about that." We'd rather simply stand out here and throw rocks at them instead of going to them and saying: "Look, you people have made an offer. We would like to talk to you about that offer. Certainly you are extracting funds from British Columbia in other areas. We would like to find out whether you'd be prepared to offer some benefits to British Columbia in this regard, consistent with the federal government policy to other parts of Canada." That to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, has not happened; nor have any steps been taken by the provincial government to attempt to make that happen.

Furthermore, I do not care for the provincial government's attitude, because it certainly does relate to revenue and to the treasury, towards those from the private sector who would make petrochemical fertilizer proposals using our abundant natural gas resources as a feed-stock. If we are to properly husband our resources, we can't simply go on gobbling up our fossil fuel reserves for energy resources when in fact they may be much more valuable economically as a fertilizer and petrochemical feed-stock. I'm not suggesting the government should or needs to get into the business immediately, but at least when the private sector knocks on the door with a proposal, the government should not complain about the noise or simply turn their backs. I think the government should be prepared to listen when those proposals come along.

I see the Finance minister has left the House. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment about the grandiose capital spending proposals which the government has, particularly the trade and convention centre and B.C. Place. Before I make my remarks I want to say that I believe every member of this House, certainly large numbers of the public — and I don't mind saying this because I come from the interior of the province — support the idea of a large, domed stadium for professional sports in the lower mainland. I happen to like to go to football, baseball, basketball and hockey games myself. Even though it's not going to be built in my community, it's my understanding that in most areas where these domed stadiums have been built they have been largely self-sufficient, if not money-makers. I would certainly support the government's proposals and the city of Vancouver's proposal in this regard.

However, it is also clear that the proposal for a domed stadium at False Creek is actually a very small percentage of that gargantuan extravaganza known as B.C. Place. While as a taxpayer I happily buy the covered stadium, I do not buy that extravaganza known as B.C. Place. There is no doubt in my mind that not only is B.C. Place going to be incredibly expensive in capital funds, but it is never going to come anywhere near to meeting even its operating costs. It's also going to deny in downtown Vancouver critical land uses which will be cut off forever. In other words, options which are available to the province of B.C. and the city of Vancouver now in terms of housing land, open space and other uses of land in the very confined area of the city — particularly in downtown Vancouver — will be cut off forever and at great cost to all the taxpayers of B.C. If there ever is to be that kind of monument-building, I would think it should be done where the land-use options in terms of places for people to live and to survive would be a lot less limited.

I realize this has been discussed in the House before, but as an interior member I want to get my own feelings on the record. It shocks me to think that the government has gone into the pockets of the private sector, the taxpayer, and the visitors who are going to come to B.C., to finance this extravaganza, which is going to have not only its initial costs but side-effect expenses for generations to come.

I would have liked to have questioned the minister. I hope he is listening to his monitor in his office or wherever he is. I would like to ask the minister for some greater details on how he and his advisers came up with the conclusion that there was going to be a massive drop in natural resource revenue in British Columbia in fiscal 1981-82. Certainly private economic consulting firms in British Columbia, who offer a professional opinion in what is agreed to be a very inexact science, have stated on numerous occasions that they do not see a downturn in 1981-82 in the B.C. forest sector. The industry is not that terribly healthy as far as lumber and plywood goes, but certainly the pulp and paper industry is very healthy. No one in the forest industry or in the economic consulting area has suggested that there's going to be a further downturn in 1981-82.

The mining industry themselves have stated that while they don't expect any sudden increase in the international price of metals, they certainly look forward to a very interesting year — I think that is the term they used — in 1981-82. The minister himself apparently agrees. He's been meeting with the mining industry — or at least that's what some of the

[ Page 4639 ]

people in the industry tell me — and reassuring them that he endorses their statements completely, in terms of what's going to happen to the industry over the next couple of years: it looks very profitable and very healthful. However, I suppose maybe that's a fight between the Mines minister, the Finance minister and the Premier, because they certainly don't agree with his analysis, nor do they agree with the Forests minister's analysis of where that industry is going. Otherwise they would not be socking it to us to the extent of at least $500 million in extra taxes which are not covered, as I said earlier, by inflationary increases — that's over and above any inflationary increases in the cost of delivering existing programs in B.C. in 1981-82.

When this government first came into office and the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was Finance minister, I remember him stating, as did the Premier and virtually everyone else in the treasury benches at that time in speech after speech, how they were dedicated to reducing the size of government. The size of government as a percentage of the gross provincial product was going to have to be reduced. If we take into account not only the bare-bones size of government.... As I said earlier, the bare-bones size of government has been increased by 8 percent in real terms in this budget. But if we include the Crown corporations which are completely and totally controlled by government, such as B.C. Ferries, B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail, we find that the size of government as a percentage of gross provincial product under this administration has been growing each and every year since they were elected. It has not decreased once. It has grown each and every year, which is inconsistent with the promises and statements made when that party over there was running for office in 1975 and in its first year.

We've heard pious statements by numerous people over there saying that the province is out of debt. I think it has been clearly established within and outside this House that under this government the debt load of the major Crown corporations, particularly B.C. Hydro, has been growing at a far greater rate in real terms, let alone dollar terms, than it ever did under the administrations of W.A.C. Bennett or the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). The indebtedness has been growing at a far faster rate under this government. Now they propose to sock it to us for at least another billion dollars on the northeast coal proposal.

Some people on the other side have been a bit contradictory on this. In her speech the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) said that we were not going to incur indebtedness for future generations, which is completely inconsistent with what the government has been doing over a number of years regarding northeast coal, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail.

However, I want to puncture, perhaps, another balloon that's commonly taken. Take B.C. Hydro, which is actually paying off its debt. The thing is, these hydroelectric projects are long-term things; after all, it makes sense, doesn't it, to build them at today's costs and pay them off in tomorrow's dollars. The fact is that B.C. Hydro has never paid off a penny of its debt.

MR. LEA: Sinking funds.

MR. D’ARCY: Yes, they have sinking funds of 1 1/2 percent a year. What happens is that when a Hydro bond issue matures or when a B.C. Power Commission bond issue matures — and there's still a few of those around — they simply go to another financial agency with another bond issue to pay off the first one. They never pay off any debt; they simply meet the interest on their debt. Hydro has never paid off a penny of its debt from the day it was first conceived in 1962 or 1963. I think that this is fiscally wrong and fiscally irresponsible on the part of government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I don't believe in keeping those debts for future generations. I believe that any business and any home buyer has to make at least token payments on the principal of their borrowing. I think the same thing should apply to government. I think the same thing should apply to corporations.

I want to talk briefly about another area affecting the Finance minister and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). It involves the government's fiscal mismanagement as it relates to pension funds. It's true that there is a problem with the government's ability to index pension funds such as the Teachers' Pension Fund. But the fact is that the reason there is that problem is because the government would not go to the open market; they would not go to the private sector. They would not get the going rate for investments of pension funds, because they wished to use those funds, which after all were contributed by employees of the school districts, the municipalities and the provincial government — anybody covered under the provincial government's various superannuation acts. Those were their own funds. The government wished to use those funds to subsidize the debts of the Crown corporations, which I've just mentioned. Rather than investing those funds on the open market at the going rate, they deliberately went out and got a reduced rate of interest. As a result, some of those pension funds are in trouble.

To me, that is financial irresponsibility and fiscal mismanagement of the worst order. It's one thing to mismanage through taxes, which we all must pay, the funds that are directly under the trusteeship of the government; it's another thing to mismanage funds which are contributed from the earnings of individuals to look after their retirements. It's their own money which they've already paid taxes on as part of their income.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) mentioned the sinking funds of B.C. Hydro and the fact that they're 1 1/2 percent. Even those funds don't really stay with B.C. Hydro, nor do B.C. Rail's funds stay there. What happens is that the government takes those funds and reinvests them at the lower rate. So the fact is that even the Crown corporations are not getting a proper return on the small amount of capital they have put aside, which I suppose is to maintain their credit rating when they seek new bond issues.

I'm very concerned about the government's attitude towards the medicare program in this country. I'm very concerned about the failure of government to bargain in good faith with the medical profession, to the extent that we all face the spectre — and perhaps for people in our age group its not really that bad a spectre — of, in effect, a two-price system and a class system of the delivery of health services in B.C. As the medical people have pointed out, the level of health care is not going to suffer; it's perhaps just the ability — particularly of the handicapped or the aged — to take advantage of those health-care services which may be somewhat impaired. If your income is not healthy but you or your

[ Page 4640 ]

family need medical services, the prospect of extra billing means that people will not perhaps avail themselves of those services in the same way that they have in the past, even though those services are available. As a human being, Mr. Speaker — let alone a politician — that concerns me somewhat. I happen to think that it's a step backward in terms of our delivery of health-care services.

I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the government's attitude towards the availability of post-secondary training — and when I mention post-secondary training, I mean all post-secondary training. I don't just mean universities; I mean the technologies and the trades. As the minister himself recognized in his speech, there is a real problem in this province with trades training and the availability of tradesmen. Industry has the problem, government has the problem, and that affects the economy, government revenue and opportunities for jobs and business in British Columbia. I hope the government is true to its word and gets its programs in place, because we have not just young people, Mr. Speaker, but we have large numbers of people in their thirties, forties and fifties in industry, who would like to — if available — take advantage of apprentice training programs. It's not uncommon in the pulp and paper industry or in the metallurgical industry in my area to find apprentices past the age of 50 and there is no reason why people in that age group should not have those opportunities through government and industrial programs, in the same way that people of all ages should have the opportunity to go to university, if they wish.

Mr. Speaker, I know there has been some publicity about fee increases for these kinds of programs. I think that these fees are not the major problem in terms of the availability of post-secondary training. The major problem that most British Columbians face is the same cost-of-living problems that we all face: the cost of food, the cost of housing if it is available, and the cost of transportation in order to take advantage of post-secondary training services when and if they are available. If you don't live within commuting distance of an institution offering the kind of training you want, that means that you run into all these problems. The availability, then, and the cost are major deterring factors in the people of B.C.'s ability to improve themselves and to develop the kind of programs that industry is telling their employees and government that they want in order to meet the job openings and job requirements that B.C. industry has today, particularly in view of the tremendous retooling which is taking place in many B.C. industries, and which will continue to take place, because many of our industries, as I'm sure the government is well aware, Mr. Speaker — I'm sure you are aware — in fact are providing services and goods into a slightly different market — in some cases sharply different markets — than what those plants were built for 15, 20 or 25 years ago. At the same time, very often — particularly in the forest industry — the kind of raw material that's available to those plants has sharply changed as well, due to changing requirements of the Forest Service, the changing types of tree that are available, and the need, in order to stay competitive internationally, to fulfil a market demand which has varied somewhat in the last few years.

Mr. Speaker, again, I wish the minister were here, but I want to talk about what I consider to be the picayune cuts in the budget. It's very difficult to explain to the people of B.C. — for instance, to teenagers aged, say, 15 or 16, or to the parents of those teenagers — why, when we've got a budget of $6.6 billion and one-tenth of 1 percent of that is somewhat over $6 million, the government could not find a further $1 million to keep the parks youth crew program going. Members on the other side may think: "Who cares; that's a small thing." I say, Mr. Speaker, that it's a very important thing in British Columbia.

The parks youth crew program is employment for teenagers aged 15 and 16 — teenagers who could not find work in industry in B.C. because they're too young; they can get out to work in a provincial park under supervised conditions. The work isn't hard, but they did very positive things — trail building, campsite enhancement and so forth — and it's been a very successful program since it was started, I think about 20 years ago, by the original Social Credit government — a program that was built on and enhanced by successive governments. But this year, all of a sudden, it has been completely axed. The government doesn't announce, Mr. Speaker, that it has been cancelled; they simply, quietly, don't include it in their budget. They consider it too small to even think about, but I think it is very important. In fact, one of its most attractive features financially was that it was a small-cost item, but it had a tremendous multiplier effect, not only in the kind of things that it accomplished but in terms of the human element of the people who were involved in it.

The same thing, Mr. Speaker, could be said of the Work in Government program for university students. Many times — not always, but on occasion — we find organized labour objecting to student programs because they say that regular employees should be given those jobs in a time of unemployment. I would note that the B.C. Government Employees Union never opposed the Work in Government program; in fact they endorsed it. One of the things the Work in Government program did.... It wasn't just to give university students a chance to work in some cancelable job or project for government; it allowed the professionals of the various ministries, whether it was Forests, Highways, Human Resources, the Attorney-General, Corrections or whatever, to use the students to work on pilot projects which were untested and theoretical. There was some reason to believe that they would be cost-effective and have some benefit to all of British Columbia. But rather than setting up a whole new program until you knew it would work, the fact is you could set up a student program supervised by professionals, and naturally, because September would come and the universities would open up again, there was an automatic sunset clause on it. By that time the professionals and administrators of the various ministries would know whether they were really doing something useful or not. That was the real value of the WIG program in the long term. Once again, Mr. Speaker, it was arbitrarily axed.

At a time when the economy of B.C. is reasonably healthy, when there are huge new tax increases, those programs have been arbitrarily chopped, and they were not cost items. I am sure you could have grounded one executive aircraft for one year and probably paid for some of these projects, or perhaps cancelled one or two trips to the Orient and those projects could have been funded.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to deplore the lack of definitive funding — and I think my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) may have something more to say on this — for the provincial share of such programs as ARDA and ARDSA. You know my area is not particularly agricultural, but we have found that approved programs — not new applications, but applications that have been approved; they have gone through the federal-provincial approval process —

[ Page 4641 ]

have been put on hold. They don't say "cancelled;" they just say, "Don't call us, we'll call you," because of lack of provincial funding. Again, it's very hard to explain to the people out there in B.C. as to why these little-ticket items, relatively small items in the large provincial scheme of things, should be either chopped completely or savagely reduced at a time of reasonably good economic strength and at a time of major taxation increases.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by once again making an appeal to the government to control their indebtedness. It has been stated before in this House — it has been stated by other members, people from other parties — that one of the primary reasons for Crown corporations, one of the reasons governments form Crown corporations in the first place, is to hide debt. There is no question that the debt which has been shown by such corporations just since this government has come into office — by B.C. Buildings, for instance; and the sharply increased indebtedness of B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail over the last few years — has been hidden behind the fact that the government can say that these are arm's-length debts because they are debts of Crown corporations.

The fact is that we as citizens of B.C., and our children, will have to ultimately meet the interest and the principal on these debts. I don't suggest that some of these debts weren't incurred for good reasons or for necessary reasons. I do think that it is high time that we quit kidding ourselves that they don't exist and that they are not going to have to be paid off, because they represent a drag on the British Columbia economy and they have a detrimental effect on the level of business and job opportunities in British Columbia, and they represent a downward effect on the quality of life and the standard of living that we should recognize.

We should be making long-term plans to deal with that indebtedness. We should not be going out willy-nilly on a whim and incurring massive new debts on proposals such as northeast coal, particularly when everything that the industry and outside consultants tell us assures us that those coal export commitments could be met by the province of B.C. from mining operations that would make money for everyone — the mining companies, the transportation companies, the port authorities and the taxpayers of B.C. — through royalties. Why should we be going into debt? For heaven's sake, if we must export non-renewable energy resources, why should we be going into debt to do so? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If a private company did that, we would assume that very quickly their shareholders would call them to task or they would go down the tube.

Mr. Speaker, you're waving your pencil at me. I presume that you're referring to that red object on your right. Thank you for being so patient. I will have more to say on some of these topics when we get into estimates.

MR. GABELMANN: During the budget debate this year it appears that we've departed from what I understand to be the normal way of conducting the debate in past years, which was to alternate speakers. Frequently in this debate the government has just not been able, interested or capable of getting up and talking about why they think the budget is so good. It's pretty easy to see why they are reluctant to participate in the debate this year. It's not a budget that I would be very proud of either, if the Minister of Finance on my side had foisted it upon me.

I want to talk about a number of issues this morning, but primarily housing. But before I get to that there are some things I'd like to say now, rather than wait for estimates. The first and most obvious for me is a line in the budget speech which we had to wait nearly three hours to hear, because it's right at the end. When I heard these words uttered by the Minister of Finance, I was not only appalled by his attitude but distressed by what it means about my country. Incidentally, unlike members on that side of the House, it's not British Columbia but Canada.

The Minister of Finance had these words to say: "...we will not be exploited by Ottawa. British Columbia's resources and wealth belong to British Columbians and we will share this wealth, but we will do so because that is our choice, not because Ottawa says we must." I'm not sure that the Minister of Finance, before he allowed those words to be written into the budget for him, understood quite what they meant.

MR. NICOLSON: He put them in.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the members suggests that perhaps the Minister of Finance himself put them in. If he did, it's a shameful comment on his own attitude about the kind of country we have.

No one in this Legislature disagrees that resources should be managed by the provinces. No one in this Legislature is opposed to the proposals in Ottawa that, in fact, that provision of provincial authority over natural resources be enshrined. We all support that. That was something the NDP in this country managed to get for the provinces of this country. But when we say that resources should be managed, and the development of those resources controlled by the provinces, we cannot go that next step, which the Minister of Finance went, which is to say that the wealth that those resources produce in any part of this country does not belong to Canadians. The resource wealth of this country is this country's resource wealth it is not the resource wealth of any one section of this country, wherever in this country it may happen to be.

If you extend the principle enunciated by the Minister of Finance in that statement, we could very easily have a situation where the revenue to people from resources is as different within this country as it is now within this world, because world resources are not shared equitably between world citizens. One of the reasons for having a country is to share the wealth from those resources among all the people in that country. The Minister of Finance says: "We share that wealth by our choice, not because we have a country." If that doesn't separate the people on that side of the House from us on this side, then very few other issues will.

You cannot have a country if all the people living there do not participate in the wealth of the country. Those decisions have to be made by all the people of the country. Whether or not we like the current crew of bandits who are in power in Ottawa right now, and none of us in this House do, the fact is they are the government of Canada. They are elected to govern this country.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I think I heard that right; it's not even worth commenting on.

One of the things that we happen to do on this side of the House is represent the views of the people in this province, while the members over there represent their government and very little else.

[ Page 4642 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, let's have an election right now and we'll see.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for North Island has the floor, and interjections will not be permitted during his speech. Proceed, please.

MR. GABELMANN: I wouldn't mind the odd intelligent interjection, Mr. Speaker.

Undoubtedly the major issue in my constituency at the present time is environment. In many parts of the province the issue is not quite as keenly felt as it is in the northern part of Vancouver Island. In many other parts of the province, particularly in the lower mainland, the major issue for 25 to 40 percent of our citizens is perhaps just trying to survive, trying to find a home to live in and enough money to get by from week to week. But in my constituency, we have a fairly high employment rate. We have an economy that is fairly well established. We not only have people who have chosen to work to make some income in the resource part of that area and then move on, but we have an increasing population that has chosen northern Vancouver Island as a lifetime residence. When people make that kind of choice, they then become concerned and aware in greater measure about the environment and ecology of the community in which they live.

In recent months in this province, much attention has been placed on the issue of the Amax mining proposals in the Kitsault area. I've said earlier in this debate on the amendment that we have similar problems in northern Vancouver Island. We already have some very serious problems that come from the dumping of tailings into the ocean. As it has been going on for ten years or so, it should provide some experience to the government — to the Ministry of Environment — as to what might happen in the Kitsault area in Alice Arm. That experience on northern Vancouver Island in Rupert Inlet has not been studied nearly as intensively as it should have been in order to give the government some baselines as to what kind of impact mining tailings dumped into salt water have on what was once a very rich fishery — prawns, salmon, and much more. The government, by its own — the minister and his staff's — admission, does not have the kind of resources it needs to determine what impact that creates.

We also have in my riding an example of mine tailings being dumped into fresh water. It's not just fresh water off in the bush somewhere; it's in one of our nicer parks in this province, which also happens to be the fresh water that we drink in Campbell River. The ministry conducted a small survey last year. The chief recommendation of the study was that there needed to be a bigger study — that one scientist, together with a few part-time students, could not adequately determine the impact of mine tailings being dumped into a water supply. The fact that all the fish are dead in that lake tells the residents of Campbell River and myself something, but the ministry staff said that further studies needed to be taken. Well, fair enough. Maybe that's appropriate — maybe further studies should have been taken. Yet the minister stood up in the House in the debate earlier this week talking about the fact that the only additional request he wanted for his ministry was to do something on the Fraser River. As I said last Friday, that's good.

But here, in the face of specific requests from his own ministry for additional funding to conduct surveys into the impact of mine-tailings waste into drinking water in a park, what do we get? Well, we look at the estimates of the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) after having listened to the minister say that he asked for nothing else from Treasury Board and got nothing else, and was happy with the one thing he got. If you took at the bottom line it looks pretty good. Last year we estimated that the ministry would spend about $71 million. This year we're going to spend $81 million. Sounds good — $10 million over 1971. Sounds pretty close to 14 percent, quickly figured out. Sounds pretty good.

Then you look specifically at where that extra $10 million in the increased environmental expenditures comes from. First of all, $6 million out of the $10 million which is allocated for next year's spending has already been spent for the emergency flood relief measures that had to be taken following the December 26 flooding on the coast. So we now reduce the additional moneys available in Environment from $10 million down to $4 million, having spent $6 million of it already. Where does the additional $4 million go to? Does it go towards enhancing wildlife management programs in this province? Does it go towards enhancing fish programs in this province? Does it go towards developing and improving water quality standards in this province, which I talked about in terms of Buttle Lake? Does it go towards doing additional studies on the impact of major coal mining proposals on salmon rivers in this province, such as is now proposed in Campbell River? Does it go to any of these kinds of programs that the ministry operates? Another one desperately needed is increased funding on river maintenance — just the continual upgrading and maintenance that's required on rivers that are subject to flooding on this coast. They're subject to flooding in a worse way now than ever before because of the kind of logging practices that occur upstream — where you're now subject to flash flooding in a way that never occurred before.

Is there any increase in any of those expenditures in this extra $10 million that is now down to $4 million? No. When you go through the expenditures you find the single largest increase in the environment estimates this year is in the minister's office. There's a 40 percent increase in expenditure in the minister's office itself. That doesn't account for very much out of the $4 million — it's only $50,000 to $60,000. But of the other $4 million, $1.8 million goes for general administration, $1.8 million for building occupancy and $0.4 million for computer and consulting charges. There is the entire $4 million that was available in additional spending by that ministry, taken up by rent, by computers and by general administration. There is nothing whatsoever for field people, whether in Fish and Wildlife, water management or in the emergency programs. I think that this illustration — and for North Island residents it's an important one, because its the environment and it's one that North Islanders are quite concerned about — of how additional moneys are being spent in this coming fiscal year applies right across the board, ministry after ministry.

With the exception of money being allocated for some of the big-ticket projects, which many of us have talked about before and which I won't talk about today, the significant increases in government expenditure — financed by a regressive sales tax, in large measure — go to administration, computer charges and building occupancy, not to programs. This is one of the richest parts of this country and the richest

[ Page 4643 ]

areas of the world and the only way we can balance the budget is to add a 50 percent sales tax increase which obviously hurts the poor people more than the rest of us. What is wrong in this province, with its untold wealth, that we cannot have here, as they do in Saskatchewan, a system where medicare is free and sales tax, income taxes and corporation taxes are smaller? We're richer than they are, and we've got a much more diversified economy that allows us to deal with the ups and downs in world markets in any one product at any one time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Island has the floor.

MR. GABELMANN: A question that British Columbians are asking themselves is why the economy of this province can't be managed even as well as that of Alberta, but certainly Saskatchewan. Why is it that the taxpayers, through their hard-earned wages, have to subsidize the kinds of increases that this government proposes? I don't think those taxpayers would complain very much if those tax increases were being used to provide programs: to provide additional wildlife officers, additional waste-management staff, additional hospital beds for extended care, a reduction in class size, or more highways where they are needed, such as from Nanaimo to Campbell River. But in this budget the taxpayers are faced with increases for administration, computer charges and building occupancy — and there it is in the Ministry of Environment's estimates as clear as you ever want to see. There is no additional money whatsoever in flat dollar amounts for environment this year. That means a 10 percent to 12 percent cutback in expenditure on the environment in this province, and the same thing is true of ministry after ministry.

Let me turn to the question of housing. I expected that this year the government would finally recognize that we have a housing crisis in this province. It hasn't. What's it done? You look at the budget, vote 151. You look at housing grants: $13.5 million last year, $12.5 million this year. That's not only a net reduction in dollars, but it's a dramatic reduction when you include the impact of inflation and, particularly, the impact of the increased cost of housing in this year.

I find very interesting the tables on page 62 of the budget speech. In 1977-78 housing was allocated $73 million; in 1978-79, $67 million; in 1979-80, $268 million. It seems like a dramatic increase at first glance — from $70-odd million and $60-odd million up to $268 million — until you remember and recognize that that money isn't a budgetary item at all, but was in fact money allocated through the so-called $200 million program which was a budgetary cost, depending on the interest rates, of about $11 million, $12 million or $13 million a year. Nevertheless, there in the table for general fund expenditures is the figure of $268 million. Last year it was down to $61.8 million, even lower than four years ago. What is proposed this year? It is $61.6 million, a net reduction in dollar figures and an overwhelming reduction not just, as I said before, from the point of view of the CPI or the inflation rate, but the real increase in housing costs that ordinary residents face.

I want to be specific on two areas of cost in housing. One is privately owned and the other rental. In terms of some figures on the cost of average homes, I have some figures that have not yet been made public. They were produced by Royal Trust, and I find them quite interesting. Let me just go through this and, if I may, attempt not to get too caught up in the details of numbers or bore any of us with complexities of figures. I do want to get them on the record. The first thing I'd like to do is just use Royal Trust's figures on the cost of a typical house in some parts of this province from December 1975 — a familiar date to everyone in this Legislature — until February 1981, last month. A house in Kerrisdale was $97,000 and is now $245,000; North Vancouver — $76,000, now $165,000; Richmond — $60,000, now $165,000; Victoria — $62,000, now $120,000, and Surrey — $49,000, now $115,000.

That's great news for those people who own those homes, but it sure is not good news for those many thousands who have been forced to rent and those many thousands of young people coming onto the housing market these days who face no prospects whatsoever of getting into a home.

That's what Royal Trust calls "house 1" There are some even more devastating figures when they give you the figures on "house 2." Let's take Surrey, because that's an area where ordinary young people might think they would be able to afford to get into a home these days. Something that cost $72,000 in 1975 was $120,000 in October of last year, That's not too bad in relative terms. If you were there in October you might think $120,000 is pretty steep, but you might be able to get in, some way or another. From October to February, according to Royal Trust's figures which have not yet been released, it went from $120,600 to $170,000 — a $50,000 increase for a typical house in Surrey in the course of four months. What's the government's response to that? The answer to that question is nothing — silence.

Let me just switch to the rental situation in this province. These are CMHC figures as of October of last year: vacancy rate, one-tenth of 1 percent in Vancouver and Victoria; two-tenths of 1 percent in Abbotsford; zero in Campbell River; one-half of 1 percent in Courtenay-Comox, Cranbrook, Duncan and Kamloops; one-tenth of a percent in Kelowna; half a percent in Nanaimo; and nine-tenths of a percent in Penticton. Port Alberni is doing pretty well at one and a half percent. Dawson Creek is 16.1. No wonder you have to create northeast coal — it's to fill all those empty apartments in Dawson Creek. Trail is zero. An established community like Trail with a basic resource industry and a fair amount of predictability to its economy has a zero rental rate.

What's the minister's response to that? "The problem is basically one for the private sector to solve." Do you want to fight an election on that one — these figures up against: "The solution is one for the private sector to solve"? There isn't anybody on this side of the House who won't willingly fight the campaign on that issue.

Here's a headline in the Victoria Times-Colonist, February 21, 1981: "Chabot urges joint effort on fast-rising rent costs."

"'A federal-provincial shelter allowance program should be established to help B.C. renters faced with rapidly rising rents,' Housing minister Jim Chabot said Friday. Chabot said he would prefer to see such a program, rather than the government build more subsidized housing."

What the government is proposing to do — according to his statements, not according to any evidence in the budget — is to increase subsidies to individuals so that they can manage

[ Page 4644 ]

their monthly rent. If we had rent controls across this province, that might be a considered solution. But I don't like it, because what it really is is a subsidy to the welfare allowances and the old-age pension allowances, and more importantly it's a subsidy to those industries that don't pay adequate wages so people can afford to live in homes. And it's a subsidy to an industry that has no intention of building those kinds of accommodations in any event.

The minister has talked about the need for capital-cost allowance programs, a resumption of the MURB program that the federal government did do in a minor way. He has talked about it for many years now. Members on that side of the House have talked about: "The only way to solve the housing crisis is through private initiative through things like capital-cost allowance." Historically, we on this side of the House have generally not favoured capital-cost allowances, because the evidence that's available demonstrates that no additional housing is really provided by that. Over the course of the last 15 years the federal studies tell us that.

I think the crisis is so bad that some compromises need to be made by all politicians and all political parties on the question of housing. I am prepared to support the government were it to bring in a provincial capital cost allowance program of some type that would provide housing for low-income people and for those on fixed incomes, including families with children and people under rent control. I think people on our side of the House are prepared to make those kinds of political compromises to our long-held position about capital cost allowances, if a variety of conditions are met and if there is some integration so that the tenants in the buildings developed are not all one class of people — using "class" in its economic sense. If housing I aimed at those people who require it — and that really does mean low-income families — I think we would show some willingness to make some compromises in our ideological position about capital cost allowances — a tax scheme which I personally find abhorrent. Fair enough. That's the ideological thing.

The crisis is such that something has to be done. We will make those kinds of compromises on this side of the House; they on that side of the House must make some too. A very significant and important element to a partial solution to the housing crisis is a rapid increase in the development of cooperative housing. For some years now the minister has said that that is a federal responsibility under that agreement negotiated a few years ago — co-ops are going to be left to the federal government. Even though the federal government is doing comparatively more in British Columbia than it's doing across the country, it's not enough. The demand for co-op housing is much more significant than the available resources from the federal government.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister interjects that the cutback is at the federal level in co-op housing allocations. I agree; they have cut back. Last year they put some of their surplus from the rest of the country into British Columbia. This year they've cut back their total, allocation; the minister is correct. But I'm going to leave to the federal MPS the job of criticizing them for that.

I think it's a disastrous decision by the federal government — but we're here in Victoria in this Legislature with this budget, at this time, with this kind of crisis. The ministry should spend some money in assisting in the development of co-op housing in this province over, above and beyond what the federal government provides. I think we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that in the lower mainland we need about 20,000 new units a year. We are 20,000 units behind before we can start at the 20,000 new ones a year, so we need a crash program this year just to catch up. I would have been pleased if the 19,000 units that the ministry and the minister have talked about last year to be developed from a variety of ways in the lower mainland, were all to have come on stream this year. Those 19,000 additional units, together with another 20,000, are needed just to catch up, and then the annual increment of 40,000 units is required. We would have been getting somewhere if that 19,000 proposal was for this fiscal year or last fiscal year, but it's not.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister wants to blame the CUPE strike on the fact that the 19,000 units aren't on stream.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's delaying it.

MR. GABELMANN: It's delaying it? We're going to be five or ten years before some of those 19,000 units are on stream.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll have a lot more to say, Mr. Speaker, during the minister's estimates.

I just want to add another set of figures that I find really pretty startling. This is the cost of a two-storey four-bedroom home in a prime neighbourhood, so it's a decent house. My source is Royal Trust again. What they've done is to take homes across the country from Victoria to St. John's. There are percentage increases from February 1980 to February 1981, this past year: Victoria, up 19 percent; Kerrisdale, up 66 percent; West Vancouver, up 86 percent, East Vancouver, up 32 percent. Those are significant increases in the cost of housing. Across the rest of the country the figures are generally single digit: 5, 7, 17, 8, 7, 4, 2, 8, 5, 7. They are mostly single-digit increases with some exceptions in Toronto, Montreal and Calgary. In those cities it is nowhere near the increase in the cost of housing in British Columbia.

I don't think it is necessary for me or for any other MLA in this Legislature to stand up anymore to talk about the fact that there is a crisis. "Runaway Crisis" is the headline of that particular story I was just referring to. I've talked about our willingness to consider some kinds of capital cost programs. I think the ministry has to make a much greater effort to get land on stream. The big program that the minister talks about all the time is Crown land for housing. In so many communities, Mr. Speaker, to say it colloquially, "there ain't none." There isn't any land going on stream, yet there are thousands of acres of Crown land available. We haven't been able to streamline the decision-making process between legitimate conflicting land-use claims, primarily with forestry on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island and also with environment and industrial use. There are packages of land that are still within forest reserve that inevitably are going to have to come out. Just as Point Grey and Richmond came out of the forest reserve many years ago, other parts of our communities are going to have to come out. Let's speed up that

[ Page 4645 ]

decision-making process. It takes forever; that's one of the problems. Let's speed it up. Mr. Speaker, it's they who have to do it. They're in the government. They've had five years in the government.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish we could resolve that that easily with that one minister, but there are other ministries: the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, the Ministry of Environment and a few others. We have got to find a way to streamline that process so that land that could be used for housing can get on the market for housing, and so that municipalities and regional districts can be putting land onto the market in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am virtually out of time. I look forward to continuing what needs to be a major debate in this Legislature during the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing's (Hon. Mr. Chabot) estimates. I suspect that we will spend most of our time on housing, and land as it ties into the housing policies. I look forward, in conclusion, before we reach his estimates, to some announcements from the ministry that there will be land put onto the market much more quickly, that there will be some assistance programs for renters in the short term, that there will be some assistance for co-op housing in the long term and that there will be a variety of other programs, many of which we'll get a chance to talk on during his estimates.

In the meantime, I conclude my comments, brief as I feel they've been, even though it's been 40 minutes, with the very strongly held view that I cannot support a budget that provides punitive tax increases to those least able to pay, without providing in turn any services to those people.

MR. BARNES: I hope that the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will be taking his place in the debate pretty soon and that in his usual good humour he will assume the responsibility that has been neglected by his government up to now in dealing with some pretty pressing social problems.

I didn't intend to remark to that fine colleague of ours, but I wanted to congratulate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), who has recently been elevated to his long-sought-after position with the executive council. I must say that in my association with him on this side of the House the past few years, I've found him to be cleverly amenable and very beautifully smooth in taking care of the people's business. We had an occasion recently to do a little cuisine mixing in someone's home in a mutual riding to promote fund-raising for one of the neighbourhood centres in Vancouver. I hope the House will join me in welcoming the second member for Vancouver South to his position with executive council.

I'm rising to support the amendment to the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the Committee of Supply. The amendment suggests....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on the main question, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Did we vote on the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. BARNES: In any event, Mr. Speaker, my remarks apply to the problem at hand, because the budget is certainly far from satisfactory. As you know, it has made it quite clear that it is capable of making false forecasts with respect to anticipated revenues. It has managed to accumulate surpluses for various and sundry reasons, although we're not quite sure what the government intends to do with respect to mounting Crown corporation deficits anticipated to exceed $8 billion by this time next year. It's hardly an exemplary record for a government that intends to balance the people's budget. We're still faced with taxes, taxes and more taxes.

The government is fiscally irresponsible when it comes to human rights, and I feel that its record reduces the human rights branch and all the services involved to that of a second cousin in this province. When you consider that the government intends to spend something close to $20 million on government advertising and promotion, a better than 30 percent increase over the last fiscal period, and only $73,000 — a brand new category, incidentally — for promoting of human rights matters. With respect to educating the public on such questions as racism and the detriments of discrimination and so forth, one can hardly be enthusiastic about the government's intentions to turn the province around and put it on a healthy, sound footing.

Let us reflect for a moment on the past Social Credit performance and take a look at the record when the former Minister of Human Resources and now Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) suggested that persons who were disabled would have to prove their disability through a rigid means test. This was only a few years ago. That same minister restricted the movement of free British Columbians who were on social assistance to those areas that, in his view, were the most likely to assimilate them in the workforce or the marketplace. The same minister suggested that people outside the province also had to have a means test in order to enter because, he suggested, they needed X number of dollars before they could come to British Columbia, suggesting that indeed freedom of movement was not one of the principles that he personally aspired to. He was pretty flippant, as well, with respect to the francophones of this country. The list goes on.

There is no question that the attitude of the government is one that leaves this member, at least, suspicious about pronouncements about human rights, a commitment to the International Year of the Child and the International Year of Disabled Persons, and a number of initiatives that this government has used in the past, such as calling multicultural conferences just before the election with suggestions that it intends to seriously address some of the grievances that people in this province have been concerned about for a long time.

I am dubious, and I am suggesting that the government should do something about its actions, rather than about its words. We know very well that words are part and parcel of the political ball game, so to speak. When the government intends to spend $30 million on advertising, I don't think there's any need to suggest that it doesn't appreciate the effect of the printed word and that broadcast through the electronic media.

But at the same time there are serious problems in this province that have to do with words. These are the ones I'd like to address at this time. Some very serious charges and words were expressed by a former employee of the human rights branch, a woman named Valerie Embree, who recently

[ Page 4646 ]

wrote to the director of the human rights branch, Nola Landucci:

"As you are aware, I have been concerned for some time that the human rights branch is not fulfilling its mandate under the legislation. After eight months under your directorship, the situation has, in my opinion, deteriorated even further. There are instances of active undermining of the investigative and settlement process and a new arbitrariness in policy development, which has seriously jeopardized the impartiality necessary to the enforcement work of a statutory human rights agency.

"My meetings and discussions with you regarding branch matters have confirmed that the problems are not ones which can be mopped up by dedicated work at the human rights officer level. As a result, I am submitting my resignation, effective January 15, 1981."

A copy of this was sent to the minister and circulated to the media. For a long time this person has been a career human rights worker. She has worked in the field, and has been dedicated to the cause of ensuring that the public is informed satisfactorily enough to cope with the problems of being able to exist in this society with dignity and respect. A few statistics on what has happened recently with the human rights branch in the past year indicate that out of a total of 828 formal complaints, there were only three boards of inquiry. There were 307 complaints settled voluntarily by compliance, but 400 complaints were carried on to 1981 and have not as yet been addressed because of budget cutbacks and layoffs of large numbers of staff. As recently as a few weeks ago, over a dozen staff were laid off. There are only some 24 officers in this whole province who are involved in enforcing the very important Human Rights Code of British Columbia.

It grieves me considerably to have to stand before the House and condemn the government for insincerity, because I suppose if one were to be totally objective, there is probably a good reason for the government's attitude. In other words, what you don't know sometimes doesn't seem to hurt you. Certainly the government has been busy concerning matters other than human rights for so long that perhaps it hasn't realized what has been happening under its nose, but I would suggest that from the first time you took over from the former administration in 1975 and cooked the books by instructing Clarkson, Gordon on ways in which the entries should be made, you have not looked back. You have continued to deceive the public, rather than coming clean, and also you seem to have fallen into the trap....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. When the member suggests that there was any measure of deception, is the member attributing an improper motive to any member of this House?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my remarks earlier, I didn't mean to suggest that it was intentional. Perhaps it is ignorance. Yes, that's the word I was looking for. I think that that is perhaps accurate, because quite frankly I don't believe that those fellow Canadians and British Columbians on the other side of the House could really be conscious of what they're doing and do it. It just seems to be too incredible. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, if there's any truth in the suggestions that bad economic times, poor fiscal programs and general economic unrest are associated with scapegoatism and forms of discrimination and racism, and so forth, then clearly the fiscal policies of the government have gone a long way to ensure that this situation exists in British Columbia.

We are witnessing right now in B.C. a Mount St. Helens type of sleeping monster in this province that may evolve into open racial strife. That sounds like a rather harsh suggestion, but you must recall that of recent times we've had pronouncements from the organization calling itself the Ku Klux Klan of Canada, or the Canadian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. They have said that British Columbia is fertile ground, and that this place is terrific for recruiting new members — people who are committed to white supremacy and the concept of "keep Canada free of non-whites" in order that we can protect those people who made this into the great culture and country it is. Those are not remarks that are being fabricated. You need only check the records. The Vancouver Sun on April 2 said:

"They're finding a lot of believers in British Columbia. The typical Klan member in B.C. is a young blue-collar worker living in Surrey. He will attend clandestine monthly meetings, possibly in another Klan member's home or in a secret meeting place, where he will discuss political issues."

It's interesting that they picked Surrey. It wasn't too long ago that the B.C. Teachers Federation attempted to circulate a film that was produced on racism. There was quite a bit of objection on the part of the B.C. School Trustees Association mainly in the Surrey area, but also in other parts of B.C. Here is something that I'd like to read into the record to indicate that the problem does exist and is not being fabricated, is very deep-rooted, has been for some time and that this government's indifference with respect to recognizing that the problem exists and taking affirmative action may prove that my prediction is correct — that we are sitting on a Mount St. Helens with the possibility of finding ourselves in the middle of racial strife that certainly none of us could have conceived would be possible a few years ago.

This article appeared in the Vancouver Sun, April 4, 1977. It was the last of a series of articles that had been written on racism with respect to Vancouver's East Indian community. This particular article deals with a fellow by the name of Jim Fortes. He was a black, a well-known figure as a life-guard during the early 1900s.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Fortes. Do you remember him, Mr. former Attorney-General? Then you can appreciate the sad facts of what I am about to read. "Of course, only whites could swim at the beach, but Joe could save their lives if need be. Mr. J.S. Matthews, Vancouver's first city archivist, once remarked that although Joe was black he had the heart of a white man. At the B.C. Teachers Federation in 1976, the culminating point of the funeral services for Joe Fortes was reached when the organ rolled forth and the familiar strains of "Old Black Joe...." So our white community paid its final tribute to the memory of one of another colour whose heart was the only white thing about him." This was in a Vancouver periodical in 1932.

There are some other points in this article, which is quite long, but I want to read one with respect to the B.C. School Trustees Association — this was 1977 — representing the

[ Page 4647 ]

province's 75 school boards. "It was provoked enough by the film to demand that Ottawa withdraw $1,500 in funding from the Secretary of State's department for the $2,200 project." At the time the spokesman for the BCTF task force was Wes Knapp — currently a Vancouver school board trustee — who was on the task force on racism and producer of the film. He said that the association also sought to have it suppressed by the Secretary of State. He's quoted as saying: "The attitude of the Trustees Association toward racism appears to be: 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.'" He said the association is denying the existence of racism in British Columbia despite the overwhelming evidence that it is part of the history of the province. Part of their commentary included this:

"We believe that the racial discrimination evidenced in our school system can only be attributed to ignorance and results in misconceptions of cultures other than the dominant one in our society. We also believe that apathy and failure to appreciate the extent of the problems caused by racism have allowed the evil to persist by educating our youth in the spirit of human rights, and fundamental rights teachers can help to replace the climate of ill-will with a sense of dignity and worth of the human person. We speak our support in working toward the federation's goal of making schools a place where diversity is accepted and human dignity is promoted."

Further in the article is this:

"... passive acceptance of racism as a permanent part of human relations is an outrage when you consider the crushing effect of racism on minorities. Some students are also outraged by the fact that their social studies courses haven't touched enough upon the history of racism in British Columbia. A few are believed to find that they are not the only ones on the receiving end."

Mr. Speaker, I have been doing a fair amount of visiting with schools throughout Vancouver. I'm amazed at the number of young people in grade 10 or 11 who have never seen a person of non-white extraction in their schools. They have no knowledge about the problems that are supposed to be associated with discrimination and racism. Some of them go so far as to say that as far as they're concerned they can see no difference in one race or culture than in another. I suppose that's a safe defence but, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that in a beautiful, multi-cultural, multi-racial mosaic such as Canada it would be unfortunate indeed for the citizens to say that they could see no distinctions in the community of people that we have.

I think that that type of colour-blindness is debilitating and certainly an affliction that is far worse than some of the complaints that we get from people who are on other forms of social assistance. If our people are so blind as to say they can see no difference between a black and a white or a yellow or a red, then what's the point of any culture? What's the point of art? What's the point of beauty? Mr. Speaker, I suggest — and I think that Mr. Wes Knapp was suggesting — that we give people the facts and give them the confidence to be able to recognize that this is a proud society, province and country for all of its heritage, culture and people. There is nothing to be condemned about a person saying: "I can see that you are black; I can see that your culture was something different than mine and I can understand it and I'd appreciate knowing more about it." I suggest we start doing this in the schools instead of waiting until people out of fear and ignorance — and in some cases, plain bigotry, because many of them do know better but are exploiting the situation which, of course, can happen because of indifference and lack of commitment on the part of authorities — end up with very serious, irreversible problems.

The kind of problem we have now, Mr. Speaker, has resulted in the creation of a very large number of anti-racist organizations. They include groups that perhaps were not thinking that they would be forming, but certainly a large number of them have grown up. Out of a meeting held last fall, a group calling itself the Committee for Racial Justice grew, there was another group calling itself the Committee to Fight Racism and a coalition against racism. All kinds of organizations are forming in this province. So far, Mr. Speaker, we seem to be similar to those school trustees in this area who prefer to put their heads in the sand on the theory that by recognizing something you tacitly accept that it will become an eventuality, when in fact we should recognize that the facts are quite clear. It's just that we do not wish to change the status quo or tamper with the status quo to the extent that we do more than provide rhetorical denunciations of the Ku Klax Klan, such as calling them abhorrent or repugnant, which was the expression used by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in denouncing the Klan.

What actions can be taken through the judicial system? What redress do the people have who have been aggrieved? The question that I am discussing now is one of grave concern to British Columbians. It's one that has been virtually neglected by all people in public office in this province, all people who have the responsibility and the ability, in fact, to take action. It's one that I'm afraid has been allowed to go much farther than it should have.

I don't intend to call names. What I'm calling on is for the government to wake up. I'm not suggesting that this is a matter for political manoeuvring. I think that we all make mistakes. Sometimes we would like to find a way out in order to recover and save some face. Sometimes you just have to accept your mistakes gracefully, but have the courage to turn right around, when the evidence is so overwhelming, as it is in this province today, and take the kind of affirmative action that you have to take. Believe me, all the things that you've said in your budget, all the things that you're concerned about.... The beauty of this province is in jeopardy.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), whom I will be addressing later on this afternoon, after adjournment, when I finish my last ten minutes, has been very slow indeed in responding to this matter, although he has begun to make some indication that he is aware of the problem. This is not a problem that he can claim he is just becoming aware of, because he has had before him reams of evidence, suggestions, recommendations and pleadings by organizations to please take action. Only now, for the first time, he must have gone to Treasury Board and demanded that they begin to take action, because they are going to spend the full amount of $73,000 for the first time in the history of this province to promote human rights. For the first time, out of a budget of $20 million that will be spent by this government in promoting itself and trying to get re-elected, it's going to spend $73,000 on the people. At least that's a start.

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:29 p.m.