[ Page 4777 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On the amendment to vote 104: building occupancy charges –– 4777

Mr. King

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Levi

Division on the amendment

On vote 105: computer and consulting charges –– 4779

Mr. King

On the amendment to vote 105 –– 4779

Mr. King

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lea

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Howard

Mr. Mitchell

Division on the amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 206: minister's office –– 4786

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lauk

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 104: building occupancy charges, $10,392,117.

MR. KING: To recap the purpose for our amendment to this particular vote and to remind the minister and his colleagues of what the purpose of this amendment is, I just want to point out that what we have before us is an increase in building occupancy charges of 90 percent over last year. The estimate last year was roughly $3.1 million, and that has jumped a very staggering amount for the coming year — up to nearly $10.5 million.

We pointed out that throughout the length and breadth of the province there are facilities which have been historically occupied by the Ministry of Forests and are now vacant. We think it's excessive and extravagant that we see this kind of increase in building occupancy costs apparently to accommodate simply a reorganization of that ministry. We look at this figure and the absolutely unpardonable increase that it represents, and we relate that to the budget, which has imposed extremely heavy tax increases on the people of B.C. We say that this is unconscionable.

We believe that we see fat in this government's estimates, as revealed by the estimates all the way through. We see extravagance in this government's estimates. We see outlandish increases in the cost of furniture acquisition, building occupancy and travel expenses so that ministers of the Crown can go on junkets around the world. We believe that it's not good enough to ask the people of the province to absorb ever-accelerating tax increases to fund the kind of irresponsible extravagance that this government is patently guilty of. Accordingly we moved a reduction in this particular estimate of $7.5 million that could be a direct saving to the taxpayers, working people and the senior citizens of this province. It would not in any way affect the necessary and essential programs which the Ministry of Forests is obliged to deliver respecting proper silviculture and proper regeneration programs and so on.

No, this particular vote has nothing to do with that whatsoever. This vote simply relates to the extravagant kinds of suites of offices which the minister and his senior staff have apparently obtained for themselves in the city of Victoria, and probably in Vancouver. The minister hasn't explained in any way what justifies this staggering increase in cost for building occupancy. We think that it is scandalous. We urge all members of this House, whether they be on the opposition side or the government side, to view this in terms of their responsibility to their own constituents — to ask themselves in good conscience whether or not they call support this kind of extravagant spending where no need has been demonstrated. We ask all members to look deeply into their consciences when it comes to the vote that will provide an opportunity to relieve the taxpayers of the onerous burden that has been imposed upon them by this kind of unnecessary, frivolous and extravagant estimate in the minister's building occupancy costs.

I urge each and every member of the House to support the amendment which would trim some of the fat and some of the extravagance out of this particular estimate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think fat was eliminated from government in 1975 about the 11th of December. The member talks about the extravagant offices for the executives of the Forest Service in Vancouver and Victoria. Our office in Vancouver is and has been in the old Marine Building for many years. The executive and administrative offices in Victoria are in the old Mac and Mac warehouse, which has been remodelled to accommodate them — very extravagant.

The member says that this increased expenditure is simply to accommodate the reorganization of the Ministry of Forests. Well, a lot of the expense is to accommodate the reorganization. But the reorganization of the ministry is absolutely essential in order to fulfil the mandate of forest management which we now have. We have to have a well-functioning and well-placed ministry staff throughout the province in order to carry on with this tremendously important job of managing the forests for ourselves and for future generations of British Columbians.

Let me just run through the details of the increase in budget from $3.2 million to $10.4 million. As I mentioned, this is partly a result of reorganization of the ministry and partly as a result of the B.C. Buildings Corporation involvement in providing accommodation for the various ministries.

Last year we had a charge of $2.5 million for occupied space; that has been increased to $4.4 million this year. We have to continue to occupy that space as we are making the transition in our reorganization. The cost of operating that space last year was $0.7 million; this year it's $0.8 million. The cost of operating and administering properties transferred to BCBC is $l million. We have 35 new capital projects planned for 1981-82, and these will be coming on stream during the year, there's a charge there of $1.8 million. We have to lease temporary space while this new space is being prepared; that cost will be $1.9 million. And we have miscellaneous small-space requirements, primarily in Victoria, costing about $0.5 million: for a total of $10.4 million.

There is no frivolous spending here. I believe that the people who work for the Forest Service should have good working conditions. They are not extravagant working conditions. I think the people who work for the government have just as much right to pleasant working surroundings as any one else; there is no extravagance involved. They are part of efficient administration and application of the plans we have for the better management of the forests of British Columbia for today and for the future.

MR. LORIMER: I'm glad to hear that the minister has tried to explain some of the increase in expenditures, but he tells us there's no expense here for housing of staff, and that in actual fact there are few changes, but he certainly hasn't explained the rapid increase in amounts of some $7 million in the housing of his ministry.

The estimate for last year amounted to over $3 million, and in the first ten months of the year $3.1 million was spent, according to the figures we received on the interim financial statements. Carrying this out to a 12-month period at the same ratio, it would come to just slightly over what the

[ Page 4778 ]

estimated figure was — it would come to about $3.4 million rather than the $3.1 million which was budgeted for. Now suddenly we go from that figure up to the estimate for this year of  $10 million. In a period when the government and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) have been talking about restraint, surely restraint should also be looked at from the government position and not only from all other sectors, with no restraint on the government's part.

I think the minister has a duty and a responsibility to this House to explain dollar by dollar how he arrives at such an excessive figure. If it isn't merely a question of fat he should certainly tell us what it is that is causing this great increase in the expenditures for the housing of the Ministry of Forests. The explanations that have been given so far don't indicate at all why this substantial increase from $3 million to $10 million.... It's an increase of over $7 million we've got here. There's a threefold or fourfold increase in this particular estimate. It certainly looks to me, and I'm sure it looks to those of us on this side of the House, that that's being very extravagant. It's being wasteful, and it shows that this budget is covered in fat. We hope the minister will tell us how he arrives at this figure of $10 million.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the member to the Blues for this morning's session, which will be coming out later today.

MR. LEVI: The Minister of Forests really is a delightful individual. He has no manners; he's quite arrogant in his quiet little, snoose-chewing way. I want to ask the minister a couple of questions. One of the things we attempted to do in this House last year was understand what BCBC was charging the ministries. I would like the minister to see whether he can tell me approximately how much his ministry is paying per square foot. The reason I ask him this is that last year I asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) if he could tell me how they were calculating the square-foot cost on the rentals. He wrote me a letter, and he said that they were using a study that had been produced by the Building Owners and Managers Association as a guideline. I wrote to them and they wrote back saying: "The average operating and maintenance costs for buildings in Vancouver in 1979 was $3.67." The Provincial Secretary, who is responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, said that was their guideline.

One of the things that the minister has told us today is that the cost for renting space for all of their office needs — we're not talking now about any of the capital programs — was $2.5 million. This year the same space has doubled. I can only presume, based on the letter that I got from the Building Owners and Managers Association and on what the Provincial Secretary said, that that was their guideline. Somehow the space-rental cost for buildings has gone from $3.50-$4.00 per square foot to $8.00 per square foot. It may be that in this particular vote we can also find out something about B.C. Buildings Corporation which we have never been able to find out before. The minister has told us that his space costs have exactly doubled. If the minister can give us that square footage, fine. I gather that they're operating at approximately the same square footage, and this year they'll have an additional 200 people.

I also want to ask the minister this. This vote is not just simply for building and rental accommodation, if the minister goes to the back of the book and looks for a definition. Under code (60), which appears under the vote, it says: "Rentals — outside suppliers: includes the lease or rental of land, buildings, aircraft, and equipment not included in any other classification (such as automobiles for staff travel)." That vote could cover all of those things that were not covered in any other particular vote.

I'd like the minister to tell us, if he can, if he has any idea of what the average cost per square foot is — we'll deal with Victoria, never mind about Vancouver.... There is a cost guideline used that presumably BCBC is telling the ministries, because when BCBC first started there were a lot of ministries upset about the high cost of paying for rents. They arrived at a formula. The formula was to look at the average cost of what you would pay in the Vancouver area, and it would be somewhat slightly less in Victoria. Is there anything in this vote that does not deal with rentals? I did not understand what the minister was saying when he talked about capital costs and applied a figure of $1.6 million. Is he talking there about the soft costs of what is going to take place in some construction? That's something I understood was absorbed by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. That is their function. In respect to new capital programs, what are the costs that have to show in his estimates?

Just to repeat, does the minister have any idea of what the cost per square foot is? Are any other things included under this particular vote, outside of rentals? Is he, for instance, in this vote buying any new aircraft or leasing any new equipment, or is it purely for the purpose of rental accommodation? Those are the basic questions I'd like to have answered by the minister at the moment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Firstly, for the capital projects which I mentioned, the number is $1.8 million, not $1.6 million, as the member said. This is for rental of new capital projects which are coming onstream this year. The project space will be provided by B.C. Buildings Corporation. The $1.8 million is for rental for them for that accommodation which we'll be occupying this year.

I would point out that the increase in the continuation of space from last year from $2.5 million to $4.4 million is that big an increase partly because last year a lot of that space was not occupied for the full year. We had come into some of that space during the year and therefore wouldn't be paying for it for the entire year. This year, of course, we will be occupying for the full year that space we occupied last year, so there is a larger number. The rates that we pay B.C. Buildings Corporation vary with the area of the province and type of accommodation. Their policy is a market-rate policy. It runs an average of $9 to $10 a square foot, again depending upon the area and the type of lease that we have entered into with B.C. Buildings Corporation. The rentals and outside suppliers — at times, because of the remoteness of some of our space, we provide our own maintenance. In order to do this, quite often we hire outside janitorial services and that type of thing.

I think that pretty well covers the questions the member asked. He asked some questions which were already covered. I would refer him to the Blues if he wishes to see it in detail again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those voting in favour of the amendment, please stand.

Those voting nay, please stand.

Would the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) indicate which way he is prepared to vote.

[ Page 4779 ]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, when a member does not rise in his place it is an affirmative vote. That is in Sir Erskine May.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our standing orders are quite clear, hon. member. Each member who is present must vote.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I was engrossed in what I was doing, but had I voted I would have voted in the negative.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 28

Hon. Mr. Waterland requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 104 approved.

Oil vote 105: computer and consulting charges, $6,160,063.

MR. KING: Once again we see spending estimates laced with extravagance. Once again we see a dramatic increase in the estimates for this service, computer and consulting charges — a 100 percent increase, from almost $3 million last year up to over $6 million this year, with no explanations whatsoever. There's nothing to indicate why we have this spectacular increase in computer and consulting charges. I want to suggest that the harassed and beleaguered taxpayers of the province of British Columbia cannot afford to continue supporting one hundred percent increases at the whims of ministers, without any explanation whatsoever This is an extremely punitive kind of financial gouging,

I think it's totally irresponsible that the minister comes in with this kind of estimate in two lines. There's no explanation. There's no itemization of why these charges are skyrocketing 100 percent. It's shocking, it's shameful and it's wasteful. It indicates that this is a government out of control in terms of their spending habits. There is nothing to justify this kind of spectacular increase that we see in building occupancy, travel expenses, frills for ministers, in advertising to propagandize for their own political failures, and in acquiring new furniture so that then plush offices may be more comfortable — all at the expense of taxpayers who have had to undergo onerous and fantastic increases in costs this year.

It's shameful. There's no justification. There's no attempt to justify it. Accordingly, I must again move a reduction in this largesse to government. I move that vote 105 be reduced by $3,246,266. In so doing, I want to advise the House that the amendments for reductions of wasteful spending in this one ministry alone, were all these amendments accepted, amount to $12,916,432. That's what could be saved. If members of this legislative assembly would vote according to their conscience and vote to ease the burden on taxpayers — over $12 million!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to hear that. It's in order and it's most appropriate. I commend its support to every member of this House.

The people on the other side are fond of going around the province and counselling restraint and prudence. "Tighten the purse strings and lower your expectations," they say to the working people of the province when they go to the bargaining table. This coming year we have major bargaining sessions in the key industries in the province of British Columbia: we have bargaining approaching in the forest industry; we have major bargaining sessions in the mining industry and in all the fundamental resource areas that are crucial to stability in the economy of British Columbia. I want to ask the members: how can you in good conscience ask management and labour to address themselves to these bargaining sessions in a responsible and restrained fashion, having regard for the need to continue the revenue payments to the province from these vital areas, when this government is prepared to come in with cost increases and frills which represent 100 percent and at the same time ask working people who are going to the bargaining table to restrain themselves and to ask for 6 percent and 8 percent increases, and then to criticize them, as many members of the executive council have done when they believed that their asking price for the sale of their labour is too high in the view of the cabinet?

We cannot continue to impose these kinds of tax burdens and cost increases on the working people of the province of British Columbia and at the same time punish them with the tax increases which this government has subjected them to as a result of these unwarranted and unconscionable increases in frills for the minister and his staff. It's totally irresponsible and totally unjustified. I urge each and every member of this House who has some sensitivity to the plight of senior citizens, those on fixed incomes and students who can't get a job this summer to refinance their education — I urge all of the people in this chamber who are interested in the plight of those people out in the community — to support the reduction of the waste and the fat and the extravagance that is patently apparent throughout this government's estimates.

[ Page 4780 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The frills and extravagances that the member talks about: I hope the member is aware that British Columbia — most definitely the Ministry of Forests in this province — is leading the world in the computerization of inventories and the computerized handling of all technical information related to management of our forests. Last year we were underfunded. This year we are increasing our expenditures in areas that will lead to better management of our forests: such things as a yield-analysis program in our planning branch, our nursery inventory system, the development of new growth and yield-sample modelling systems in the province, expanding our IGDS inventory-mapping system, our resource analysis and economic productivity studies — which are ongoing, so that we can always know the state of our forest and range resources in the province.

We're installing additional hardware for computerized lightning detection and location systems to help protect our forests from fires — a way of helping to offset the biological falldown that would otherwise occur. We're getting new hardware for the implementation of our support and distribution data-processing systems. A lot of our overexpenditure last year was a result of having to go to a special minimum stumpage for the market loggers so that the small businessman could receive the benefit of special stumpage rates; of implementing a new log-grading system to more nearly reflect the value and the grades of the logs produced in British Columbia; of implementing a new stud-appraisal system to more closely reflect the actual market conditions for stud producers in the province.

The major increases this year are: to enhance our harvest data-base system, so that we have better and more accurate information about our forests; to start a pilot project in electronic recording and gathering of field data; to enhance our standard appraisal system. All of these things are directly related to better management of our forests for today and for the future. If these are frills, I'll accept these frills for our forests.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one doesn't have to do more than glance through the estimate book to see what the Systems Corporation has done to this province in terms of computerization and cost. I suggest that any vote that doubles from under $3 million to over $6 million in one year has a lot of answering to do before we accept: "We're doing a pilot project here, and we're going to be leading the world there, etc." I suggest that this is computerization gone absolutely berserk. If I thought for one second, Mr. Chairman, that this was going to be something that would be efficient and something that would give us a return, then maybe I would be just a little bit more satisfied. I know that since the medicare commission went on the Systems Corporation there have been doctors across the province squawking their heads off because they can't even get their cheques straight, or on time or anywhere close. In forestry I know that it is important to get in touch with all those things that are going on around us. But when we double in one year, then one must be suspicious.

Building occupancy is way up and computerization is double. I just don't understand it. Could it be an overestimation so that one can come in under budget? Could it be that those cynics are right — that all they're trying to do is to trap a few dollars so that next year there will be goodies for the folks? Oh, that is a cynical thought.

When one carefully observes these estimates and when one thinks of what the people in this province have had to do in shelling out to support this budget — a 50 percent increase in sales tax, an increase in school taxes and increases elsewhere — then one has to ask the questions: what are we doing? This is the kind of vote that makes me very suspicious indeed. It's a vote that will double from $3 million to $6 million in one year. It takes an awful lot of doing, colleagues, to increase that much in this particularly technical field. It strikes me that when we set up the B.C. Systems Corporation the hardware and that kind of function was to be in their bailiwick. Are we duplicating in Forests? This government opted to borrow money to work the B.C. Systems Corporation capitalization through. Now we note that the minister stands up and talks about hardware. I understand software, but I just don't understand the hardware aspect.

I support this amendment, and any of the thinking members of the government side — not the cabinet; they're locked in, and they haven't thought since the day they were in government in 1975 — but the government backbenchers.... At least stand up and defend the minister. If you've got something to say in support of what he's doing, then get up and put your words on the record. That's the least we can expect from you. So far we've had total silence from that government side with the exception of the minister's brief explanation....

MR. KING: George got up.

MR. COCKE: I apologize; the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) got up yesterday and made jokes about insects. Other than that, all we hear is them speaking from their seats, enjoying the knowledge that they will not be recorded in Hansard. They haven't the courage to get up and support this minister's vote. I support it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm rather surprised at the member for New Westminster. The member for Dewdney yesterday made some remarks about insects. I'm sure that member recognizes the very serious nature of our insect infestation problem in B.C. I'm surprised that the member for New Westminster takes that very serious problem so lightly.

The member for New Westminster has gone on record as being against the effective use of computers in the management of our forests in British Columbia. He says that because this is a technical field, you need not use computers. The more technical the field, the more opportunities there are for computerization and correlation of data gathered. The member, by being against the effective use of computers, must at the same time be against the better management of our forests, because the two go hand in hand. It's no wonder that no advances in the management of our forests were made during their term of office. I would hate to think of them ever again getting into office. They would take giant strides backwards.

B.C. has the most progressive forest management programs of any jurisdiction on this continent. That member is against that, or he's against the use of computers which have provided us with the tools we need to get on with that management. It is surprising and shocking to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must advise all members that again we tend to be straying somewhat from the vote, both in the minister's reply and in the statements by members. I would advise all members that on this particular vote, vote 105, we

[ Page 4781 ]

are talking about computer and consulting charges and the amendment thereto.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that is the point that I was going to raise when I stood in my place. The fact is, instead of defending his situation here — doubling his budget — he has an attack on the former government and the member for New Westminster without saying one single word in defence of his position. That's what it's all about. The opposition asks questions. I suggested yes, we're all for better management. I asked the question, however: how do you double in one year, particularly in a technological situation like this? That was no answer at all. It was just as insulting as that minister was when he was working for the mining department in 1972, '73, '74 and '75 and was going around undermining the government he was working for. Just the same kind of personality conflict and attacks. I find it quite repugnant.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That member continues to display his disdain for the public servants of British Columbia. When I was working for the department of mines during 1972....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Although the matter was referred to briefly by the previous speaker, I must advise all members that presently under discussion is vote 105, computer and consulting charges. It is the only item that we may discuss at this time. I would again caution all members that if we are to effectively discharge our responsibilities, we must give some attention to the rules that bind this House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My remarks regarding my activities during 1972-75 would be just as brief as the remarks from the member for New Westminster. I would say that during that period of time I worked for a government. I did not work for a disastrous party. I did not agree with the policies; I administered them when I was on the job, and when I was off the job I did every possible thing I could do to make sure that party was removed from government, because it was a disaster for British Columbia.

If the member wishes to know more detail about the increase in our computer costs this year, I would again refer him to the Blues, because I went through this at great length earlier.

MR. NICOLSON: I will try to keep very closely to this vote and this amendment. This vote has been around for a few years, and when in one year you propose to more than double it from $2.9 million up to $600-odd million.... When you increase it by $3,246,266, which is about a 110 or 120 percent increase, it is almost axiomatic, especially in an area such as computer technology where things are changing daily, that in your rush you're going to buy equipment that is going to be obsolete. I would like to ask the minister one thing: in this outlandish increase, how much is going to be spent to write new software which will be compatible with the new IBM main-frame computer? Because they're going to be removing the Honeywell computer from service. How much of it is simply going into that? How much of this so-called increase is really necessary simply to replace, adapt or modify software?

I would ask the minister if there is going to be any decentralization of their computers. That's supposed to be the thrust of the forestry reorganization program. Does all the computer data go into a central main-frame computer to have centralized decisions made, or is this equipment going to be minicomputers, maybe microcomputers — smaller computers which are far more economical and efficient and would appear to be the more logical type of system for a ministry which pretends to be decentralizing? Not that I believe that to be the case.

Another thing the minister says is that we're going to need all of this because we ran into things last year and we're upgrading and so on. Well, what has the ministry done in terms of spending the money that we voted under this vote last year? Last year this House approved in good faith, I think unanimously, $2.9 million plus a little bit. What had you expended in the first ten months? Actual expenditures were $2.2 million. If we extrapolate what we might expect to spend in the remainder of the year, that would be $2.6 million, leaving a surplus of $300,000. In other words, you probably won't even spend what you were allotted last year. So when we see all the other padding and all the other fat throughout your estimates, Mr. Minister, it makes us very suspicious that perhaps what we are going to be spending money on here are not simply those things required to bring about electronic detection and logging of lightning strikes in order to automate and to do away with other types of observation in fire suppression.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

How can we possibly in this ever-changing field spend more than double what we spent last year, and be sure that it is going to be well spent? What we have here is a situation where a Crown corporation appears to be running out of control, and where a ministry is captive to that corporation and cannot make the kinds of management decisions that it might prefer to make within its ministry. It appears that we're trying to make the foot fit the shoe rather than the other way around. So we have this one massive computer system and all of the various departments in the Ministry of Forests are being forced to fit that mould.

I want to ask the minister for something a little bit less general than what he's given us so far today. How much are each and every one of these programs going to cost? What kind of computers are you going to buy? In what general size are they going to be? What brands?

MR. BRUMMET: What colour?

MR. NICOLSON: Perhaps what colour. Yes, computers do come in colours. In fact, Mr. Chairman, computers are something that interest me. I can program a computer to write in its basic machine language. In assembler language, in Basic language, in Fortran language. I subscribe to two or three journals.

As much as I might like and be intrigued by computer hardware and technology, I am alarmed by this kind of an increase, particularly when I see the kinds of things that are on the horizon in computer technology. I know that when there is a mad scramble to spend money because your budget has been more than doubled in one year, that money could be very ill-spent. And I must say that the investments that I make in computer technology are investments that come very slowly out of my own pocketbook, and the investments that you're making in computer technology should come slowly and rationally, because they're coming out of the pocketbooks of

[ Page 4782 ]

the people of this province, who are not even fascinated and mesmerized by computer technology.

Mr. Chairman, computer technology holds out some of the greatest promise, but it is also one of the things that we must approach with the greatest of caution. When we see in this first ministry that is before us that we are more than double.... I say, let's save money. Let's spend as much as we spent last year and let's spend no more.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, throughout the minister's estimates we've attempted to show where we consider there is fat, where we feel that money has been put into a vote without any intention to spend that money. But they come in at the end of the year and say: "Look at that, we didn't spend our money. Lo and behold, we've got a little bit of a surplus here, and this might be the election year coming up." As we go through these votes we find, time and time again, that there is evidence to support the theory that that's exactly what the government is going to do. We take a look at vote 105, computer and consulting charges, and we see it up by 100 percent. On the same vote another ministry is up from $49,000 to $143,750 — up almost 200 percent. The other ministry can't use the kind of lame duck excuses that this ministry is using in trying to justify the increase in vote 105.

The surprising thing is that the people from Cranbrook, Fort St. John, Houston, Mission — people who are represented in this province by backbenchers of government.... It seems to me that people living in those ridings represented by an MLA have the right to at least know the views of their MLAs in this House, as they represent those very people. Every time we move that a vote be reduced because we see it as fat, as too much money, as a frill....

We see travel expenses, advertising and publications, computer and consulting charges all going up, and not one word on behalf of the taxpayers from Fort St. John, Fraser Lake, Fernie....

MR. BRUMMET: We go home and talk to them.

MR. LEA: Your job, Mr. Member, is to come in here and talk on behalf of those people. Honestly, I'm amazed at these members who believe that it's their duty to come down here and shut up, then stand up when the government waves a wand at them to vote the way they're supposed to because they're frightened that they're going to lose their role as MLAs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will remind the hon. member for North Peace River not to interrupt while the member for Prince Rupert is speaking, and the Chair will ask the member for Prince Rupert to relate his remarks to the amendment to vote 105, computer and consulting charges.

MR. LEA: Vote 105 is not just for computers; it's for consulting charges. That's a pretty broad statement. Is it for consulting charges strictly for computers, or is it consulting charges in the Ministry of Forests in a more broad way? Are some of the dollars of this increase going to be used to pay the kind of moneys out that we've noticed lately — for instance, Ron Basford, $600 a day and a free lunch? That's the kind of thing, that can come out of here.

How times change. That political party used to say to us when we were in government: "You people see a problem and your answer to that problem is to throw some money at it." This morning we hear the Minister of Forests saying: "We have problems in the forest industry and our answer, as the Social Credit Party government, is to throw some money at it and the problem will go away." There are many ways that the forestry service can improve. We don't believe that the only way you can improve that service is to throw some money at it. Indeed, we believe that efficiency of administration might be one of the answers to cut a little of the fat out of the bureaucracy that this government is putting together.

Why is vote 105 having to go so high? I suspect that it's another hidden subsidy. The Systems Corporation needs the money. The Systems Corporation now has approximately 600 people working for it who are not on the rolls of the civil service. They don't show up on the books. If you take all of the functions that this government has shoved off into Crown agencies and Crown corporations, and count up the people who are working in them and the money that's being spent, you'll see why vote 105 has increased — because they're taking taxpayers' money and shoving it into those government agencies and Crown corporations that they say they have no time for.

They're the party that said they wanted to curb government growth. They're the party that said they wanted to put some sort of system in place that would try to curb the kind of personnel growth that we see in government. The kind of nonsensical things that are going on under vote 105 and other votes in this budget are absolutely incredible. There's a 100 percent increase rather than going out to the private sector and saying: "What about your computers? What about putting some sort of system together that has some sort of efficiency?" Oh, no. This is the party of big government. "Big is better. Throw more money at it. Let her grow." It's topsy-turvy bureaucracy. They're so enthralled with the corporate sector and the kind of bureaucracy that they see in the private corporate sector that they're trying to duplicate what they see in the bureaucracies of MacMillan Bloedel, Imperial Oil and the other bureaucracies we have in the corporate world. They're trying to duplicate it without having the common sense, savvy and years of experience in the private sector. They see themselves as having the opportunity to come from Merritt, in rather a junior position within a government department, to be the minister who likes to play at being "Mr. Corporate Body." Well, he is playing at it, and he doesn't play the game well.

At one time in a bureaucracy in the private sector you had to have seven pieces of paper to get a pencil, and in the bureaucracy of government you had to have seven pieces of paper to get a pencil. We've seen a turnaround with this government. Now where it takes the same number of copies of paper in the private sector, it takes probably 20 copies to get a pencil in this bureaucracy gone wild across front us.

If those of this group in cabinet who were here in opposition when we were in government had seen this budget, they would have gone absolutely wild. A 100 percent increase in vote 105 to a Crown corporation that the government put together, which they said would be small and efficient but has grown to an incredible size, to be an incredible bureaucracy that they're feeding the taxpayers' money through what I consider to be the back door.... That's all they're doing. This is a hidden subsidy, and part of it is to a Crown corporation, and the rest of it won't be spent. At the end of the year they will say: "What good fiscal managers we are. Oh, I'm sorry we underestimated the revenue, but then we are such good managers of the economy that the revenue to the

[ Page 4783 ]

province increased fantastically even beyond our wildest dreams, because we're so wonderful as economic managers." Lo and behold, there they are. Revenue will be up. We'll find that 50 percent of vote 105 won't be spent. There'll be increased revenues and inaccurate expenditures — not accurate by the admission of cabinet themselves.

No matter which explanation you take on this vote and others from the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), neither adds up. What we're left with are two different stories from two different ministers of the same cabinet, and neither of their explanations adds up to any sort of common sense. This is a bureaucracy gone wild with hidden subsidies to Crown corporations and government agencies, and expenditures of the remainder that they don't intend to spend in the first place. It's called trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayers of this province. That's what it's called, and the head wool-puller is the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 105, please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: We're talking about vote 105.

You know, it's amazing that this political party that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayers of British Columbia is pretty much made up of polyester minds. Mr. Chairman, it's amazing to me that this group of people would bring in vote 105 and expect the people of this province to swallow that they're actually going to spend a 100 percent increase on computer and consulting charges within the Ministry of Forests. That they expect people to believe that shows, as a political party, their contempt for the intelligence of the average British Columbian — their absolute contempt for the people they are sworn to serve.

How times change from the days of 1972 to 1975 when Social Credit told us they were against big government, big bureaucracies and big money, and wanted to try and solve problems that a little ingenuity and a little innovative idea might solve in the first place. Their answer, when they are in government, is to do all of the things that they swore not to do while they were in opposition. It's a politically schizophrenic government. They have no idea what holds them together except a raw lust for a cabinet bench and power, with not one whit of an idea of which direction they're going. Because they are directionless, because they have no base policy, because there's no common philosophy that holds them together as a group, we are bound to see this hodgepodge of financial "pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayers" systems that we see in this budget. We reject this 100 percent increase and support the amendment put forward by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

MR. MUSSALLEM: I can't understand the member's frustration. I know he is speaking what he thinks is right. I think the member for Prince Rupert is not trying to deceive this House in any way, but I don't think he is capable of understanding the magnitude of the forest industry. The industry has reached a brand new plateau. They complimented the minister on the magnificence of his new plan. I'm sure that they — especially he — are unable to grasp the magnificence and the thrust in the future of this great industry. This is British Columbia's greatest and largest industry. I can understand what $10 is and I can understand what $1,000 is. I maybe even understand $10,000. But if anybody expected me to imagine the thrust of a million dollars, let alone a billion dollars.... I defy any member of this House to visualize the thrust of a million dollars. We talk of millions and tens of millions and billions, but it's impossible for any single mind to understand the thrust of this kind of force.

It is not the minister alone. It is his vast and complex department. For a ministry such as the Ministry of Forests to enter the twenty-first century and to develop the equipment and the ability to meet world competition, they must do so with the highest technology. I accept the word of the minister and his staff when he says that this new technology is necessary and the new computers are necessary.

I had occasion only yesterday to complain about a small matter in my chequing account. The bank very clearly asked me the date and the time. I couldn't get an answer, but they said: "We'll ask the computer." I know we're moving in a new era. For any member to stand up in this House and pretend to understand this complex matter is merely wasting the time of this assembly. I feel that the member for Prince Rupert is trying to be sincere when he makes these statements. He refers also to when our government, in opposition a few years ago, would have gone wild over this budget. Of course they would have gone wild over this budget, because the government of that day was not capable of even entertaining such a budget. The fact was that the ship was sinking. The most important thing then was to bail it out. It wasn't a question of building it up. There was no building to be done.

The computer is only part of the system. There are many points in this estimate that could be argued. Fighting the computer issue itself shows a lack of understanding and knowledge. I'm prepared — and I think we should be prepared — to leave this with the experts who say that it is necessary for this great industry, the largest industry we have in our province and one on which our whole future is based. When they say we need computers and we need to spend this money, I am one prepared to give it to them.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said this: "Why doesn't the member go back to Mission?" When he mentioned Mission I decided to speak, because that's my constituency. Yes, I tell the people in Mission what's going on here. The people in Mission are pleased, because they have seen the increase in industry that's been created by this government. There's a tremendous new plant employing 500 people, and more coming because of the thrust, not only of one industry. The forest industry is part of it — part of the great progress of British Columbia. part of the fact that British Columbia is an oasis of prosperity in a continent of depression. Why is that? Because we think right. The minister thinks right. His staff think right. They say that to enter the twenty-first century, we need the very best computers. I say they should have them.

MR. HOWARD: With all due respect to my dear friend from Dewdney, we have just seen an example of what probably was summed up by Benito Mussolini when he was pushing the advocacy of fascism.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as I have advised the committee, we are on the amendment to vote 105.

MR. HOWARD: You've permitted the member for Dewdney to wander all over the lot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the records will show that I had to bring him back.

[ Page 4784 ]

MR. HOWARD: In advocating the concepts of fascism, Mussolini said: "I don't need you to understand; just have faith." That's what the member for Dewdney was saying. He doesn't understand. He doesn't want to understand, but he's got blind, absolute faith that the minister is doing the right thing — no questions, no attempt to query, no attempt to understand, no desire to appreciate whether it's right or wrong; just blind, absolute faith. That typifies, I submit, the whole cabal of government backbenchers — blind followers of a declaration; right or wrong, they're with it. Seals in training in an aquarium do better than that. Go to any zoo and see where people are trying to train animals to perform tricks; they've got more intelligence than that.

MR. BRUMMET: The zoo is here.

MR. HOWARD: If the member for North Peace River — and I'm sure you'll bring him to order, Mr. Chairman — wants to say anything in this debate, I suggest that he stand up so everybody can hear him. Let him tell us whether he's got blind faith in what the minister is doing.

The estimate before us and the other estimates which are padded....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Speak to the amendment, please.

MR. HOWARD: The amendment seeks to take out some of the padding. I can't talk about taking out the padding without talking about the fact that it's padded in the first place, Mr. Chairman. It seeks to take out some of the fat, and still leaves the fathead in charge of the ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, personal allusions cannot be allowed in Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD: Sorry. It seeks to cut out some of the fat in government, and it still leaves the fatheads in government. How will that be? That's much broader.

What the the minister is attempting to do here and what the Minister of Finance is attempting to do with his budget in this particular vote before us in the amendment reminds me of some of those sleazy, unprincipled business people who would have a tag on an item in the store for $5; then they'd put on a sale, and they'd take the $5 tag off and they'd put on....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order. The member for Skeena has the floor on the amendment on vote 105. If the member can relate his debate to that amendment and to that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to order. If the member for Skeena would please relate his comments to the Chair and maintain relevancy with respect to the amendment on vote 105, the committee can proceed smoothly and with courtesy towards our parliamentary tradition.

MR. HOWARD: Exactly what I was seeking to do, Mr. Chairman, without the rude interruptions.

In looking at this vote and what's involved in the whole estimates of the ministry, I was talking about a businessman — and not all business people have high principles — who has an item in his store at the regular price of $5. Then he has a sale — this used to go on, and it probably still does — and he takes the $5 tag off the item, puts it in the drawer, puts another tag on the item for $10, puts a red line through it, and then says it's on sale for $7.50. That's what we've got here.

I simply do not believe the minister when be tells me that it's necessary to increase the money for computer charges by more than 100 percent. The reason I don't believe him is this: in 1978-79 the amount available and provided for in the estimates for computer services for this ministry was $2.2 million; in 1979-80 there was a slight increase to $2.4 million; in 1980-81, the fiscal year which is just about to end, it was $2.9 million. One could have expected, taking inflation into account, an increase of the same order, perhaps $200,000 or $300,000 over the $2.9 million last year. But no, we don't find that. We find this sudden jump to $6 million. That's why I do not believe that the minister is presenting an accurate and correct figure reflecting the actualities. It's a padded figure; it's a phony figure. All his commentary about the need to keep track by computers of what is taking place in the forest industry and so on in no way justifies that excessive amount of money. Either the minister is not presenting figures to this assembly which are honestly arrived at and reflect truly and honestly what the situation is, or he's captured by B.C. Systems Corporation who have just told him that they want $6 million, take it or leave it. Then he hasn't questioned it. If it's the first, then the motion we sought to move the other day, which we didn't have an opportunity to move, about his resignation is valid. If it's the second, and he's been captured by B.C. Systems Corporation who are just submitting him a bill and he's not questioning it, then he also should resign. I think it's a complete lack of competence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there was a decision made in the House that the committee has to accept: debate in estimates of supply does not afford the committee the right to question members being in cabinet or holding a portfolio. That's from Sir Erskine May.

MR. HOWARD: I certainly question his competency to hold that portfolio. If the Chair would listen to what I'm saying, rather than to what the Clerk is saying about this matter, perhaps the debate could proceed in an orderly fashion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please return to the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: That's exactly what I'm dealing with, Mr. Chairman, the amendment. I didn't mean to say anything unkind to the Clerk at the table. I realize that he has to give advice from time to time, but I wonder about doing it on such a continuous basis that it detracts from the Chairman's understanding of what's taking place in the committee. Just simply in summation: one, the minister is padding the accounts in order to justify the onerous tax increases visited upon the people in this province. His motivation is not straight on, not correct and not responsible if he's doing that. Or, two, he is incompetent because he has not examined whether or not B.C. Systems Corporation is presenting the proper bill to

[ Page 4785 ]

him. Which is it? Are you incompetent or are you fudging the truth, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that remark — that in fact the minister may be imputing a false motive in his estimates.

MR. HOWARD: I'm asking a question. Is the minister fudging with the truth?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member did question another hon. member's sincerity and imputed a false motive. I would please ask the member to withdraw that imputation.

MR. HOWARD: I can't even ask the minister a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You cannot question another hon. member on his honour in this House.

MR. HOWARD: Well then, I won't question him as to whether or not he's fudging the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please withdraw the remark?

MR. HOWARD: I won't withdraw the remark. I will withdraw the imputation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the hon. member has imputed any false motives towards the minister, will the hon. member please withdraw imputation of those.

MR. HOWARD: I am not and did not intend to impute false motives to him. I think his motives in presenting this estimate for this amount of money are quite in keeping with the whole philosophy of Social Credit.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your assistance, but quite frankly, I think we on this side have become quite used to the low, gutter type of debate from that member. We recognize the source.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll remind all members. This committee — and the Chairman of this committee — has ruled on many occasions in the last three days that we cannot impute the motive of another hon. member. The persistent use of insulting language does nothing to forward debate in this committee. It's been used by many members. It is unacceptable to our parliamentary tradition. The use of it is becoming far too frequent to be accepted by the Chair. We have an amendment before us. We are in committee where we, in fact, discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose votes are before us. That is what the committee is bound to do. I would ask all hon. members to retain and to confine their debate to the bounds that the committee allows us to debate — namely, at this point, the amendment on vote 105.

MR. MITCHELL: We've just had some well-reasoned debate. The minister made a remark which I thought was really degrading to this House, that they were "gutter" statements. I feel that that statement was degrading to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and I ask you to ask the minister to withdraw that, which I felt was imputing his motive and his well-reasoned, responsible debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Minister of Forests, if he has imputed any false or improper motives to any member of this House, please withdraw.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: At your request, certainly, sir.

MR. HOWARD: I think the record should also show that I wasn't the least bit interested in asking him to withdraw that kind of statement. It properly reflected the minister's mentality about these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the amendment, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD: The only thing we can do is stand up and be counted — government backbenchers too. You have your opportunity now — if we can get to the vote on the amendment — to show that you truly aren't either trained seals or seals in training.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, hon. members, the committee and this parliament cannot accept those types of references, and I would caution all members about references to any member of this House that are unparliamentary or discourteous.

MR. NICOLSON: One thing that I think might help some of the members opposite in formulating their decision on this is the fact that there is a ray of hope in this world which is engaged in mad inflation. In this technological area that we're debating under this vote there happens to be a deflationary trend. I gather from some of the things the minister said that some of the types of things he's intending to go forward with are going to require investments in hardware; but that hardware is coming down in price, not going up in price — if they are making wise investment and really know what they're doing — unless they're buying old surplus IBM equipment that IBM wants to go, stuff that runs at a snail's pace compared to modern technology. Just as an example, line-printers which two years ago were selling for $2,500 today sell for as low as $500, and you get a superior product: higher quality and density on the print head, better character speeds and more reliable rates, whether through a parallel interface or through a serial interface. The minister shakes his head. I don't think he knows what is being pulled over his head. If a person wants to keep up with the technology, the whole area of computers is becoming more and more economical.

For that reason I'm sure that members opposite might reconsider their position of just saying see no evil, hear no evil and think no evil. If they don't think and don't look they won't have to make any kind of a rational decision; they can on just make a decision based on faith. The fact is that if this government is truly looking at decentralizing the ministry it can, in changing its whole investment in computer hardware and software, probably save itself tremendous amounts. We should not just be seeing a level of expenditure equal to last year; we could probably even realize savings. When you look at the price of all kinds of computer equipment, whether you're looking at terminals — which have come crashing down in price; they've been cut in half and cut in half again in terms of terminals, printers and memory.... The price of any type of memory system you want to look at has come

[ Page 4786 ]

plummeting down in price in the last two or three years — a tenfold decrease at least. The price of mass storage and mass storage technology has come plummeting down in price. Yet we're looking at something here which says that we have to go in one year from spending $2.9 million to spending an additional $3.2 million.

I don't know what you're going to do with all the equipment that you buy. And there is no guarantee.... Can the minister get up and tell us that he's even going to spend all of last year's budget? At the rate he's going, there is going to be a surplus there. We're convinced that this is one more area where you have padded the budget in order to overestimate expenditures along with your companion program of underestimating revenues. I urge members on both sides of this House to vote in favour of this amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 28

Mr. King requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 105 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE
AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 206: minister's office, $147,400.

HON. MR. McGEER: Should it be your wish, Mr. Chairman, I could make some comments on the budget as a whole and on the way in which the opposition have addressed themselves to the detailed estimates so far. But in the hope that we're going to concentrate on relevant debate and on the important issues before us, for the benefit of the members opposite I would like to give a brief review of some of the highlights of the activities of this ministry during the past year and the implications of the estimates which are before the House at the present time.

In the universities area, Mr. Chairman, you should note once more a very generous increase in the funding which has been provided by the Premier and the Treasury Board, something which I know the universities of British Columbia are very grateful to receive. They're grateful to receive it for two reasons. One is that the increase in funds during this current year is more generous than for any other province in Canada. Because these increases are generous, the universities of our province have deemed it appropriate to keep their tuition fees extremely low. It's their privilege and right to set the fees at whatever level they choose. That's the way our institutions are given autonomy in British Columbia. It's through this method that they are able to enrich to any degree they deem fit the basic programs which are funded by the taxpayers of B.C. So we find that the fees in B.C. are the lowest in all of Canada, with the exception of Quebec, and that they now represent barely 10 percent of the total costs of running the institution — which, I might add, is down from 38 percent when I was a student at university.

The students in this province get a marvellous deal compared with their counterparts across Canada and in most jurisdictions of the world. Our students are particularly favoured in B.C. because of this. I think it's fair to observe that no country in the world provides, overall, a greater proportion of its resources for post-secondary education than does Canada. And at the present time, no province in Canada is providing more for its post-secondary students than is B.C.

With respect to the science portion of this portfolio, you will note that provision is made for grants to be awarded by the Science Council for projects in British Columbia that will improve knowledge and skills in this province in areas particularly related to our special opportunities on this Pacific coast, and that the bias that has been provided as guidelines by the government is towards industrial projects. In other words, we regard this scientific grant money as an investment in the skills and industry of the future. Canada has set as a national target for research and development 1.5 percent of its gross domestic product, a level which would place us in the same general range as Greece, Spain and Portugal — but not in the same category as Ireland — and certainly far behind nations such as Germany, Japan, the United States and the advanced countries of western Europe. So even with the goals that have been belatedly set by the national government as achievable by the mid-1980s, we're going to drag far behind the western nations. Therefore we must do our part here in B.C. to see that this part of Canada, at least, is well served by the scientific skills that provide the basis for the growth industries of tomorrow. We have undertaken one or two special projects which we think will be of benefit in the fairly short run to the people of Canada and to this province. One of these was the announcement by the Premier of British Columbia that the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation shares held by the province would be turned over to the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation, the benefits of which would be used to further medical discovery in British Columbia and perhaps other parts of the world. There is no greater gift that an advanced country can make to underdeveloped countries than that of medical discovery. It is perhaps worth observing in this regard that more people are alive in the world today as a result of the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best than there are Canadians. That single Canadian medical discovery, perhaps the most spectacular in our history, has conferred life itself upon more people on this planet today than there are citizens of our nation. These are

[ Page 4787 ]

the dimensions which medical discovery can bring, the benefits which can flow from wise and useful investment.

One of the activities that will be undertaken by the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation will be to support the activities of a newly formed company in British Columbia, Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which will undertake the manufacture and supplying of the world's most sought after drug, interferon. To give you some idea of the current value of interferon, it is estimated to be worth between $10 billion and $20 billion per pound. The world's production last year was less than one one-hundredth of a gram, and probably fewer than 200 people in the world have so far been treated with what many hope will be the miracle drug of the century. It's too early to determine the ultimate medical benefits conferred by this particular agent, but we will be undertaking clinical trials in Canada in conjunction with the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan in an attempt to determine the medical benefits. Because of the purification plant we will initially build in British Columbia, and because of the commitment to build a full-scale plant if it proves to be a useful agent, those who take part in these clinical trials can be assured that those supplies will be available for Canadians from now into the future.

Later on today, the chief clinical scientist, Dr. Karl Priestman, will be arriving in British Columbia to bring us up to date on his experiences in using this particular material in the United Kingdom and to guide us in setting the ground rules for our clinical investigations here in Canada.

Another project we are attempting to further here in British Columbia is the utilization of natural gas in automobiles. Members know that the Science ministry automobile itself is equipped to run on duel fuel. We will be holding a world conference next September on compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel for automobiles. We will have on display some automobiles which we believe are those of the future, incorporating some of the advances made as a result of the research group that's been at work for the past year at UBC.

I'd like to remind members of what the stakes are if technology can be improved to the point where this becomes a widely used automotive fuel. We will be spending in the next decade — if something is not done — somewhere in the order of $70 billion to bring in oil that we would not require if even a substantial minority of our automobiles were to run on methane rather than on gasoline. We could become totally self-sufficient in Canada in terms of our current production of oil if about one-third of our automobiles were to convert — keeping in mind that those which will convert first are fleets that travel the greatest distance and therefore consume the most fuel.

We anticipate that before the year is out there will be public fuelling stations for compressed natural gas operating in British Columbia, as they are now operating in New Zealand. We anticipate that there will be several fleets of automobiles converting — using today's technology, not tomorrow — as demonstration vehicles here in this province. We have been in contact with governments around the world who, like us, are interested in taking advantage of substantial reserves of methane as a source of fuel rather than to have themselves at the mercy of the OPEC nations.

There is debate on the exact current reserves of methane in British Columbia and in other parts of the world, but our supplies are assured well into the next century on the basis of what has been discovered to date. We anticipate in British Columbia and in other provinces of Canada that we've not really begun to discover the resources of natural gas that are available to us from conventional gas wells. If and when that source of supply ever ran out, one can produce methane readily from coal, and our supplies of coal in the northeast region alone are there for some 3,000 years. So we know we'll never run out of methane, because we can always make it from our coal.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) would like to see us utilizing more of our coal here in British Columbia instead of sending it, as we do now, directly overseas.

MR. LAUK: You said 3,000 years. Will you stake your seat on it?

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure. You and I and Lazarus Long will be around to settle the bet.

Mr. Chairman, if and when that supply ever were to run out — 3,000 years from now — you should know that methane can be readily produced from biomass — I'll give you another word for that: sewage, plant life and wood waste — so that this is not only an abundant source but it's a renewable source. Therefore all that we need to do is to make a commitment to have those oil-consuming vehicles and other machinery that we have now committed to OPEC oil run on our cheap and abundant natural gas.

I'd like to say a word or two about communications. We had a demonstration satellite-receiving dish on the lawn of the Legislature last year. We hope that dish will spawn thousands of children around our province, because we have in British Columbia an open skies policy. We have not had success in attempting to persuade our national government that an open skies policy is good for Canada. Nevertheless, when the Minister of Communications for Canada was reluctant to meet with his counterparts in the provinces last fall to discuss this and the matter of cable regulation, we agreed to host the ministers of communications across Canada at an entirely provincial meeting. At that meeting, and in a subsequent meeting in Quebec City to which also were invited federal officials, we laid down an interprovincial policy on communications to which all of the provinces of Canada now subscribe. There will be regular meetings of the Communications ministers of Canada to develop and refine a policy which the provinces, collectively representing all the people of Canada, deem to be in the best interests of communications in our nation.

It probably comes as no surprise to the members of this assembly that the cornerstone of this policy is that communications should be a provincial and not a federal responsibility. The exceptions to this were very clearly spelled out last summer in the constitutional discussions, which agreed that certain limited areas should be under federal control, such as national television networks, the awarding of band frequencies that cross provincial jurisdictions, the establishment of international contracts and agreements, the setting of national standards for telecommunications equipment, the launching of satellites — all of these are appropriately federal responsibilities. But if it comes down to things which are much closer to home, like regulating cable and deciding whether or not a cable operator may put a burglar alarm system into the city of Victoria, that's a local service which serves local people. Therefore it should not be in the hands of the federal CRTC in that huge building of theirs in Hull,

[ Page 4788 ]

Quebec, which is remote from the people of Canada, with their hearings frequently held in Ontario to decide a local matter of jurisdiction in one of the smaller towns here in British Columbia. It's to end this kind of nonsense that the Communications ministers of Canada, in defence of the citizens of this country, have taken matters into their own hands and established a common policy.

Just as we believe, with the Prime Minister, that the state should not be in the bedrooms of the nation, so we believe it should stay out of the television rooms. If people want to put up their antennae and receive anything they like in the way of entertainment or education, that should be their right, without some federal snoop with running shoes knocking on the door and asking what you're listening to and in which direction you've got your antenna pointed. This too is a common policy of the provinces across Canada, with the exception of Saskatchewan, which wants to own all satellite receiving dishes. So we have said: "God bless them in Saskatchewan." If they want to control everything there, that is certainly their right within their province. But they subscribe to every other province being able to manage its communications in the way it deems fit.

We have also established in British Columbia a new television network owned and operated by the people of British Columbia for the people of British Columbia and their education. I refer, of course, to the Knowledge Network of the West, seen in Vancouver and Victoria on Channel 18, and on the VHF frequencies of many of our interior communities. We would like this to be universally available to the people of British Columbia, because it's beamed by satellite and therefore the signal is reaching every single home in our province. Unfortunately, not everybody has an antenna to receive it. But we hope to develop our electronic highway in the province so that people can receive our own Knowledge Network, and at the same time be able to receive other satellite signals that might interest them as well as our own educational offering.

Unlike some educational television networks — and I think particularly of Ontario's — ours is concentrating on hard educational delivery. In other words, it is our intent that people be able to take their adult basic education, their vocational training and their university degrees right there in their living rooms. The Knowledge Network of the West brings education to the people. Instead of requiring people to come and attend our institutions, leave their homes and communities, give up their jobs and pay our fees, however nominal, they can get it all delivered right into their living rooms through our Knowledge Network.

All of these marvellous advances are made possible because of the sound overall policies established by the Social Credit government: the support and encouragement of the business side of our province, the furthering of investment, the confidence in the future. When you've got those kinds of wise fiscal policies that have been practised by this free enterprise government, then it becomes possible to develop these magnificent services; to be able to give to our students here in British Columbia the most generous post-secondary facilities in all the nation; to be able to provide a Knowledge Network which will give education to every single citizen; to be able to invest in future developments of a scientific kind; to be able to encourage medical discovery, which we hope will benefit the whole world. All of these things stem from wise fiscal policy. The basis from which all of this starts is the overall budget. Right now the people of British Columbia are receiving their dividend for supporting Social Credit.

MR. LAUK: The hon. House Leader has indicated that perhaps at this stage an adjournment is in order so that people can get an early lunch. Before doing so I want to make one comment before canvassing some of the aspects raised by the minister and dealing with some of our views with respect to the ministry.

I congratulate the minister for standing in his place and giving us a precise overview of the activities in his ministry, and also through it, indirectly, an expression of his philosophy of post-secondary education, research and where we're all going in that regard. The minister has indicated that it was through sound Social Credit fiscal policy. I suppose, because of his experience and his perception, he knows that his own side of the House at any rate is comprised of individuals whose legs can withstand an infinite amount of pulling. I think it's not anything to do with the fiscal programs of the Social Credit government. They are indeed a disaster. They have imposed upon the people of British Columbia a horrendous tax burden. They've imposed upon the people of British Columbia a monumental provincial debt through its Crown corporations and agencies. They've imposed upon British Columbia the most backward government in the history of Canada. But nobody's perfect, Mr. Chairman.

Though I want to throw a bouquet to the minister and say that some of the advances, which the opposition accept as being sound and worthy of pursuit — such as the Knowledge Network, irrespective of my early remarks about that program; such as the research programs that are being developed; and such as the position of the government with respect to communications — all of these are there solely because of the minister as an individual, his personal courage and his effort to drag the rest of his cabinet into the twentieth century insofar as science is concerned. I think he's fooling his own side when he says that, and he's being altogether too modest. It's he who has brought these things about, and they will collapse when he leaves public office, unless and until a New Democratic Party is elected to office.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He knows when to go, Mr. Chairmanl, I say through you to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). One of the tragedies of the political career of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is that he's finally arrived as a minister of the Crown on the very day his government is going to collapse. I've always said that Peter had superb timing.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:18 p.m.