[ Page 6571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 9 –– 6571

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Richmond

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $664,544.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I thought maybe the Premier wanted to say a few words this morning; I certainly would like to do so. I want to talk to the Premier about some of the issues concerning which I think he has to take a clear leadership role as far as the province is concerned, because the ultimate responsibility for what his government does certainly lies with him. I know that a lot of the criticisms which have been directed against various members of his cabinet and his government, in terms of their failure to make decisions based on the needs of people, are criticisms that the Premier himself should probably address himself to. Because he makes the final decisions, he has to take the ultimate responsibility for the fact that his government is perceived to be unconcerned about people and uninterested primarily in them. So there are a number of issues I want to raise this morning specifically with the Premier.

As the Premier knows, the report which the ombudsman prepared for the House raised the issue of the Ministry of Human Resources discriminating against welfare recipients because of their age. If someone applies to the Ministry of Human Resources for assistance, the person gets a different income based on whether their age is 31 or over 31. A number of people aged 31 and under have not been able to understand this discriminatory practice on the part of that ministry, so they filed a complaint with the ombudsman. After doing a lot of research on this, and questioning the Ministry of Human Resources, the ombudsman finally completed his report. I'm raising this because, as I said before, the Premier has to take ultimate responsibility for decisions made by his government. The ombudsman said: "In my opinion the ministry" — meaning the Ministry of Human Resources — "failed to give adequate reasons for isolating this age group as one with less need for support money. I found that the regulation in question was improperly discriminatory. I believe the theory of mobility misses the real question: does a 30-year-old need less money for food than a 31-year-old when both are on income assistance?"

I am raising this question with the Premier, because I would like the Premier to explain to me whether he as the head of his government believes that a 30-year-old needs less money for food, housing and transportation because a 30-year-old old is continually looking for jobs and has to have more money for transportation and for general needs than a 31-year-old does. The ombudsman does not believe that to be the case. Most people do not believe that to be the case. Since I have not been able to get a reasonable response from the ministry which perpetuates this discriminatory policy, and the ombudsman has not been able to get a satisfactory response from the ministry which perpetuates this discriminatory policy, I would like to ask the Premier if he can explain why a 30-year-old is forced to live on less than a 31-year-old when both of those people have to depend on the Ministry of Human Resources for income assistance.

The second thing I'd like to say to the Premier is this: has the Premier any understanding of the implications for the housing needs of people on fixed and minimum incomes of the development of B.C. Place and what it's going to do to the housing needs of people presently living in that area? Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm raising this under the Premier's estimates because I believe that the Premier again ultimately has to be the one to take responsibility for the decisions made by his ministers. Since I have not been able to get a reasonable or satisfactory answer to some of these questions directly from the ministers, I'm appealing to the Premier himself.

For example, has the Premier read the study which was prepared by a student at the school of social work at UBC on the impact of the development of the high-density housing slated for B.C. Place, and what it's going to do to the people on minimum and fixed incomes presently living in that area? If he is aware of that, has the Premier made any alternative plans for these people?

I realize it's hard for the Premier to concentrate when the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) keeps whispering in his ear, but nonetheless, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You just want me to whisper in your ear and give you a bit of a hand over there.

MS. BROWN: Not when I'm discussing business, but if it's pleasure at some other time, sure.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, it has been clearly indicated that the housing planned for this area is going to be luxury accommodation. It's going to be accommodation that the people presently living in that area will not be able to afford. They're going to be displaced. I wonder if the Premier has taken that into account in the planning and development of B.C. Place.

Can the Premier also explain to me why a piece of legislation introduced in this House a number of years ago, dealing specifically with income assistance rates and GAIN, with a special section — section 8 — which indicated that those rates should be indexed.... Why has that section of the act never been proclaimed? Everything else feels the impact of inflation and to protect itself against inflation is being indexed. But that particular section of the act which deals with indexing the GAIN rates has never been proclaimed. I wonder if the Premier can respond to that.

This is the last opportunity that I'm going to have to talk about the International Year of the Disabled with the Premier and specifically to say to him that since the beginning of this year every opportunity that I've had I have raised the concerns of one particular group of disabled people on the floor of this House without success. The Premier is the court of last resort; this is the last place that this issue can be raised. I want to go over it very carefully with the Premier because he is the only person left who can act on this particular issue.

In the lower mainland there are over 4,000 — close to 5,000 — people who are disabled by virtue of the fact that they are blind; they cannot see. They are totally dependent on public transportation. They cannot drive cars, because they cannot see. They cannot ride bicycles, because they cannot see. They cannot use skateboards, because they cannot see. They cannot sail a boat. They have no other means of trans-

[ Page 6572 ]

portation, of getting from one place to another, except via the public transit system. That is the only means of transportation that they have. By virtue of that fact they receive a bus pass which allows them to travel on the public system.

The nearly 5,000 blind people in the lower mainland have been asking that the government continue a practice first initiated something like ten years ago, which said that anywhere in the lower mainland — whether it is Victoria or Vancouver — where they happen to find themselves, that pass will be honoured. In other words, because they live in Vancouver doesn't mean that the pass can only be used in Vancouver; because they live in Victoria doesn't mean that the pass can only be used in Victoria. That pass can be used on any of the public transportation systems, either in Vancouver or in Victoria. This is known as transferability.

For some reason or other, when the decision was made to remove responsibility for those blind passes out of the Ministry of Human Resources.... I support that decision, because I don't think that the passes have anything to do with the giving of income assistance or charity or welfare; it was a straight transportation issue. When it was transferred by the now Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to the Urban Transit Authority, they decided that those passes were no longer going to be good on both of the systems. In fact, people who lived in Victoria would have a bus pass that would only be good in Victoria; people who lived in Vancouver would have a bus pass that would only be good in Vancouver.

One of the reasons given for this was the cost: it would be too expensive to continue to make the passes transferable. When we examined the cost we discovered that the cost was going to be $25,000 — that's all. Surely when the Premier looks at the size of the budget which his government administers — a budget which some of his ministers have earmarked for office furniture, advertising and travel and a budget that has been set aside to hire people to ensure that he never forgets to powder his face when he goes on TV — surely the Premier cannot justify withholding $25,000 from this particular group of people in our community and at the same time tell us that his government cares about people and that his government is honouring this year as the International Year of the Disabled.

I know that it's going to be very easy for the Premier to stand up and say that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is responsible for the issue that I raised about discrimination based on age in receipt of income assistance. I know that the Premier is going to be able to stand up and say that the Minister of Human Resources is responsible for GAIN legislation. When the minister decides to index it, it will be indexed. I know that the minister is going to be able to stand up and say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for bus passes, and it is up to that minister to see to it that the money is found either through his ministry, through the Ministry of Human Resources or some other source in order to ensure that people who are disabled by virtue of being blind continue to enjoy a privilege and a right which they have had for the past ten years.

But I am raising these issues specifically with the Premier, Mr. Chairman, not to have him refer them back to his ministers, but to have the Premier take responsibility for these issues. I am raising these issues with the Premier as the chairperson and head of his government, and of all decisions made by his government, and as the chief executive officer of this province. I am going directly to the Premier with these major concerns. Again, very quickly, discrimination based on age in terms of income assistance.... How do you justify that a person at the age of 30 needs less on which to live than a person at the age of 31? How can the Premier justify that? How can the Premier justify that nearly 5,000 people in the lower mainland are being deprived of the only source of transportation they have? As the executive officer who administers a budget in the billions, he cannot find $25,000 in this the International Year of Disabled Persons to ensure that those people can travel on the buses — their only source of transportation. How can the Premier explain that in order to protect them against inflation, the section of the act which says income assistance should be indexed has never been proclaimed?

How can the Premier deal with those questions? I would appreciate getting a response from him on those issues.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Obviously these are areas that if they weren't canvassed under the Human Resources estimates, because they deal particularly and almost totally — with the exception of one or two points — with the responsibilities of the Ministry of Human Resources.... I'm flattered by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds suggesting that the Premier can administer every program of every ministry of government. The opportunity during estimates is to present a detailed examination of the estimates, ministry by ministry. These are the type of questions that can be placed.

However, I don't mind responding to some of the points the member makes, because it's true that the government has great concern for the people of this province, whether they're disabled in the Year of the Disabled or in any other year. They're not just our concern in this year; they're our concern in every year. That's why this government has done a number of things and has introduced a number of programs to aid the disabled in this province. They have special problems. We understand that. It varies from person to person, depending on the disability.

The member particularly brings forward the difficulty with transportation. I don't agree with the statement the member makes that the only form of transportation available to them is buses or public transportation. I know full well that many also have a means of private transportation available to them, through their families and others. But I do know that public transit is important to many of them, so let me deal with transit and what we've done in this province. I think it's important, not only for the disabled but for every British Columbian.

For years in this province we've had a lot of talk about the needs of public transit for the economical movement of people, to relieve congestion on highways and to conserve energy away from the single-passenger use of the private passenger automobile. We've had transit needs in this province not just in the area that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds represents — the lower mainland or Point Grey or Burnaby-Edmonds — but important ones all over this province. There are many communities that require some sort of public transportation.

Until now there has never been a transportation policy relating to this in British Columbia. Historically, Hydro inherited the bus system when they took over B.C. Electric in these areas that were part of their franchise agreements, and was left to subsidize, out of electric rates charged all over the province, the buses for just two regions: greater Vancouver

[ Page 6573 ]

and the Victoria region. Obviously, this wasn't fair to the many other communities and citizens that purchased Hydro, and through their bills paid for transit systems in this area. It obviously wasn't rational to have an energy-producing company responsible for transportation; there's no relationship between the two mandates. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we set up the Urban Transit Authority. We set it up on another premise as well. For many years local governments and politicians have been asked for representation on developing transit needs and participating not only in the decisions but in the responsibility for transit, region by region, in this province. To accommodate this, the government set up the UTA. As it is set up we have the richest sharing with municipal government of provincial government financial support that you can find in this country, much richer than in the previously largest-sharing province that I am aware of — there may be others — and that was Ontario, whose share from the provincial side has been decreasing rather than increasing. There is now roughly a two-thirds contribution from the provincial government to both capital costs on all public transit and to their operating deficit; because only a small portion of the transit costs are taken from the fare box. They are subsidized very heavily.

Outside of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria we now have over 22 transit systems, and I'm proud to say that not only is that type of transit available to those people in those communities, but for the first time we have transit facilities particularly aimed at the disabled outside of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. Buses for the disabled have recently been put into service in Kamloops; I think the number has gone from two to four. The first two buses for the disabled in the Kelowna-Westbank area were introduced recently. Disabled services bus transportation has also, I believe, been introduced into the Prince George area. Those buses are an improvement on the old bus that did not easily accommodate the disabled person. Instead of a rear-loading they have a side-loading vehicle in the Kelowna area now.

Mr. Chairman, you will find this very interesting: through other programs in the Ministry of Human Resources the provincial subsidy to the buses for the disabled is 90 percent. That means that the provincial government is assisting all these communities, over and above their local share and the fare box, to 90 percent for disabled buses. I'm glad to see that those who have always concentrated their concern on transit and the disabled only in Vancouver can appreciate that this problem is all over this province. Not only has the development of UTA brought transit to many people; it is also concentrating on greater assistance for the disabled.

When we set up the UTA with local participation and heavy provincial subsidy.... The UTA is a provincial body, with representation from the various transit organizations. The provincial government is not controlling it; it is local representation. This year I believe the chairman of the UTA comes from the Kelowna area; I think it's Fred Macklin. Where some transit regions have gone beyond the support that we now give for the disabled, to deal with specific categories such as the blind, it is possible for UTA to have a reciprocal agreement with them — it is their decision. We encourage them to do that. Certainly there's no financial penalty for doing that, because of the very rich share the province already provides to the transit system. While I would be pleased to pass along the member's concern to the chairman of the transit authority, I'm sure they are able to effect those types of agreements between the various transit systems that come under the general direction of the Urban Transit Authority — which now consists of 22 systems, in addition to two large bus systems.

Because I know that transit is of concern to the member, let me also say that in addition to buses in those areas and special buses for the disabled, this government has introduced into the area of greatest need — because we're making it financially feasible for the districts — with some leadership from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, additional options for transit in the greater Vancouver area. One option is a commuter train that will operate through Coquitlam out towards the constituency of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), which will be in operation within the next 18 months. It will certainly provide great assistance over and above the ability of buses. The commuter train will run on the tracks presently utilized by the railways which run into Vancouver. We have also made a decision — again with a generous subsidy from the provincial government to UTA — to put an automated light rapid transit system into greater Vancouver. The first routes will run to New Westminster, with optional extensions to Surrey and Richmond as future considerations. The automated light rapid transit will be quieter than traditional rapid transit, and thus we will be able to utilize public space already dedicated or alienated around stations that require more width for density accommodation, for either housing or other matters that the member questions. It means we won't be alienating a traffic corridor; in fact, we will get higher utilization at strategic points, using the air rights that will assist in the development of accommodation for people. I believe they will be located right in the area in which they can also use the transportation facilities. That type of proper long-term planning is under consideration, It was first suggested by this government before the decision was made for ALRT

I also want to say that I'm pleased that we in British Columbia can use Canadian technology. It's true that many people said that we should not buy Canadian technology, that we should be purchasing European technology of existing transit systems and looking internationally for alternatives, because the transit technology we're purchasing has one demonstration project developed in Ontario and one in Hamilton at the present time, and the price might be slightly higher because of the higher costs of Canadians developing it. While we're great Canadians, we also have an obligation to get the best value for a dollar.

The reason we were enticed into looking at the Canadian technology developed in Ontario by the Ontario government's transit development agency was that the federal government had promised a $31 million grant to the transit agency of the Ontario government for the second use of that transit in a viable way in a part of Canada other than Ontario. So they were able to reduce that price. The Minister of Human Resources and others negotiating for the UTA were able to get the federal government to increase their subsidy to the Ontario government and Ontario transit technology to $60 million rather than $31 million — I believe that is the figure — and also to make it part of the agreement that we would get approximately 60 percent of the fabrication of the system within British Columbia, with the opportunity to sell this technology in the future. It means we will be developing not only a modern transit system; we'll be creating industry and jobs in the private sector in British Columbia. I believe the first contract has already been awarded to a small firm in Richmond. Also we were able to buy Canadian. That serves a number of needs.

[ Page 6574 ]

So I think with the development of the UTA in those areas, in transit for the disabled, and for all in all regions, we've made substantial progress. If she hasn't talked to the proper authority, I will certainly take the member's concerns to the head of the UTA, because they already have a generous provincial, financial assistance to undertake a number of options, which they're doing as a special thing with buses for the handicapped or the disabled that are being placed around the province.

The member also mentioned British Columbia Place. British Columbia Place is a downtown redevelopment project of the government of British Columbia. I'm certain that I don't have to remind the member of the long-sought-after redevelopment of that north side of False Creek by various city councils. It was apparent to everyone that they could zone and rezone and talk all they wanted, but there would never be any redevelopment. That area was going to continue to expand into a second-class industrialized area, as it was, with some industry — unsightly. It would never have been put to its highest and best use. As it developed, it would become more cost-prohibitive for anyone to develop that area. It has to be developed in a reasonable but also in a financially responsible way. Obviously it was beyond the ability and the competence of the city councils of Vancouver to deal with the problem. It was obviously never going to be undertaken by the private sector because of their inability to come to any agreement with the various councils in the city of Vancouver. It was left to the province of British Columbia to make a decision to undertake this tremendous redevelopment.

It will be the largest major downtown urban renewal project, as I've been told, in North America. The scope and scale of it is astronomical, because of the size and the key location of the area. As a provincial project it will combine a number of things. The first project already undertaken — in what must be a speed record for the development of the concept, the undertaking of the study, the drawing of the plans and the letting of the contracts for a large, major public project — is the building of an amphitheatre on the site adjacent to the Connaught Bridge. That will utilize part of the site. Not all of the property is acquired yet that will be needed for the eventual development. Some is still under negotiation with B.C. Hydro, and some is needed. As a viable project to house Transpo the project could be stopped — particularly the Transpo side by the city of Vancouver failing to make available the city-owned land that needs a lot of financial improvement and infill along the water line and would be an ideal place for additional housing. So I would hope that we can get an early decision from the city of Vancouver on whether they're going to allow Transpo to go ahead, whether that plant is going to be available to be part of the B.C. Place development, and at what cost, because B.C. Place will have to undertake tremendous financial cost to improve that land and clean up the waterfront immediately in front of the existing cement plant. It also involves some additional private property that can complete the sweep around False Creek.

Obviously, then, a number of uses are planned. What is now scaled for B.C. Place is to, in a realistic way, put 10,000 units into the development.

MS. BROWN: Luxury units.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "Luxury units." You may be more familiar with luxury accommodation than I am, but I would say that when you put in that number of units it will have to be both esthetically well done and well done to house people. People are people. If you develop a unit that someone can purchase as a condominium or lease or rent, they move and make space available somewhere else. That's part of the continuing development of accommodation. Part of the system that encourages people to want to continually upgrade their own dwellings is that they can move from area to area, house to house, and improve by their own efforts. There's no incentive if you work hard to pay for your house and someone gets one right next door for nothing.

The member says "luxury." I say no, it's not going to be luxury. It's going to be good, average accommodation that, I understand, will be made available to British Columbians who will live in downtown Vancouver. There will be no discrimination for anyone. Those who so wish can undertake a transaction to live there, I would guess, under the same terms as anyone else. The member is maybe suggesting: will there be any special privilege for one group in society to live there? I say not by B.C. Place and their development.

What there can be, because our housing programs.... If you're looking for rental assistance or purchase assistance, those programs are already available under the provincial and federal governments. If the city of Vancouver wants to target some special assistance program on tenants, we could cooperate. That could be a program that could be developed separately, but that wouldn't be developed by the B.C. Place development itself. It's the government's role to deal with people, and to deal with people who may need assistance in various areas, but the B.C. Place mandate is to negotiate what will be an esthetically and well planned redevelopment in the heart of Vancouver.

Should any social program provide any assistance in those areas, that will not come from them but from governments; that's their traditional source, and that is the only proper way to plan it and make sure that the program is equitable. The government could not, in all conscience — you've got to remember that there is more than Vancouver in British Columbia — have target programs for just one community or one part of one city. It has to be a program available to every British Columbian, so that the same opportunity is available in every part of this province, so that you don't have a hidden program within the development of that project. If there's going to be any assistance, it will be through proper public programs, either existing or developed, that will assist people as individuals.

I hope that clarifies that point for the member. I think I've covered most of the points I'm able to deal with that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds raised.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Premier for answering the questions that I asked as well as a number of questions that I didn't ask. I appreciate that. However, I specifically addressed myself to the plight of 5,000 people in the lower mainland who are disabled by virtue of the fact that they are blind. This issue was raised with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). As a matter of fact, the Minister of Human Resources herself issued a press release in January of this year in which she said: "I am appalled at the stand that's been taken on this issue." It is not a Human Resources issue. I thought I made that point clear

[ Page 6575 ]

with the Premier. It's a buck-passing issue that's going on between the UTA and the government.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking the Premier whether we can have a commitment that that $25,000 is going to be found to ensure that those bus passes are made transferable on behalf of these nearly 5,000 lower mainland people. That is all I'm asking, not for a speech on urban transit or anything else. Surely a government who can find $105,000 to take a ferry trip with Premiers up the river or up the stream, or up wherever they're going, can find $25,000, because the GVRD says that they're not going to be able to give this service unless the government comes up with $25,000 more. That's all I'm asking. From somewhere in this massive budget can $25,000 be found to ensure that the 5,000 people on the lower mainland who are blind can use this bus pass transferability privilege, which apparently they've had for something close to 40 years. That's all.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member talks about bus pass transferability, and the fact is that they've had nowhere to transfer to until we set up the UTA and put bus systems in other parts of the province. The member might not consider a bus system in Chetwynd — because perhaps you've never been there — or in Dawson Creek or Kelowna or Kamloops as important, but those bus systems have just been developed.

Within the funding we already provide to the UTA, Mr. Chairman, there is generous assistance, both in transit sharing and in sharing for the disabled, and they're able to achieve that within the funding we already provide. Because it seems that the member has not taken the trouble to go to the proper authorities in the UTA, I will do that on her behalf, and take that time on behalf of those people. Apparently this is not a new concern of hers, but one that I will be willing to direct to the proper authorities, recognizing that we have a minister, and also we have a UTA and a board of directors, and I think we even have a representative from the area which she represents in the provincial House, and remind them that they have the opportunity with the very generous funding the province already provides.

The member went on to mention that somehow there's some tremendous subsidy from the people of B.C., that because the governments of this country, on a number of issues — and some of them will not be just the economics or constitution of the country but will be on the social issues facing the people; some of the Premiers' conference, which goes a long way to meeting the needs of Canadian people, that will be held in this province this year as it is every ten years — that somehow any money allocated to the sponsoring, when it's our turn for that conference, is a ripoff and being taken from those who are in need in this province. I want to tell the member that that is not the case. British Columbia has the responsibility every ten years to host the Premiers' conference. Obviously when you get Premiers and ministers together in that type of conference, a lot of solutions for a lot of people are found. I think it is a major investment for people that interprovincial and governmental relations are a major feature of this country. There may be those who don't understand how the country works, and don't want it to work. There may be those whose commitment to centralism would have those decisions made by Ottawa. Certainly I can understand why that member doesn't think an interprovincial meeting should take place. Because I witnessed at the recent national convention of the NDP that a number of members in this province are not prepared to support the resources that belong to the people in this province. They want them turned over to the central government. Obviously that member, Mr. Chairman, would not see any useful reason.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier has the floor. There will be ample opportunity. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with a number of subjects in my estimates, and one of them is to respond to areas that I believe have been opened up by the member, in a very derogatory way, to display the attitude which she has to the other provinces. Now obviously it's their own business if they want to attack one of their own, the Premier of Saskatchewan, at their convention. If they want to leave him abandoned as the only publicly elected NDP person that is willing to defend the ownership of the resources by the people of the province.... In speaking for them he is speaking for the people of British Columbia. It's very interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that we have finally smoked out the provincial NDP in British Columbia on constitutional issues. A group that cares so little about the national debate and concerns in the nation that they have refused to put any position forward in a concrete way to resolve the dilemma that is before us.... Not only have they not provided substantial solutions or alternatives but they have been sitting quietly, afraid to make a move until they are forced to at their own convention, in which they supported Trudeau and the Liberals.

What we have now is a provincial caucus in British Columbia; the New Democratic Party are supporting the Liberals and Prime Minister Trudeau in their constitutional proposals. That's what they're doing. They are not supported by the most rational and eloquent spokesmen for the NDP in the country — that is, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, and the Attorney-General, Roy Romanow, two people who have spent the last few years not only caring about what happens to this country but caring about the traditions, conventions and practice of how this country operates. They have so little feeling for the federal system that they don't understand that their commitment is not as a provincial member committed to preserving the provincial rights which we have in this province. They are willing now, as they offered before and as they have suggested in resolutions to their convention, to give the resources that are now owned by and part of the heritage of the young people of British Columbia over to the central government. It is very clear that their disdain for meetings of Premiers, whether it includes the New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan, is not just based in a partisan way but on their true feelings that this country should be run from Ottawa and that only Ottawa will make decisions relating to how our resources will be developed and how the value is distributed.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes or no to bus passes?

MS. BROWN: What about the blind people? Are they going to get bus passes?

[ Page 6576 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I responded to the bus passes issue. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who hasn't been here for some time, comes in and interrupts the debate. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) had no need, in her sarcastic way, to denigrate the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We are still in a legislative assembly. I will remind all hon. members that this is the Legislative Assembly and that debate will remain courteous, polite and parliamentary.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I was just so exercised in coming to the defence of Allan Blakeney that I made a mistake. I withdraw and apologize to the member.

I must say that the Premiers' conference that will be held here as part of my responsibility as chairman this year is very important. The issues in this country may not be important to, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is asking questions that she neglected to ask in the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. I have no knowledge of whether she dealt with those subjects in that period, but that was the appropriate time.

But I am prepared to talk about the Premiers' conference and whether the transportation from one of its locations to another — because it will be both in Vancouver and Victoria — is a waste of the public's money, as is stated by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. Obviously there would be greater disruption to the transportation system in this province, given that our capital is on an island and that mass transportation must be undertaken by ferry, if we were to attempt to move an entire conference, which starts in Victoria and concludes in Vancouver, on the ferry system from Swartz Bay at the time the conference is ready and prepared to move, disrupting a complete sailing, leaving behind people who have lined up to get on that sailing and leaving people abandoned. It is much easier to plan in advance and schedule around this event. To be able to move an entire conference without disruption to the public, because I must say that the Ferry Corporation has publicly assured the people, I believe, that the taking of the ferry for one day to run the conference from Victoria to Vancouver.... Incidentally, the conference will continue on the vessel. It has been scheduled around, because they've been given enough advance notice. They have been able to book those few who requested accommodation at that time both in advance and after that particular date. It would be far less disruptive than trying to disrupt the existing and already heavily taxed summer ferry schedule from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen should we attempt to move a full conference.

I don't apologize for that. I say it's good planning. I also say that I took offence yesterday when the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said that we were just looking after our friends, as if there was something wrong when the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) said the other Premiers were our friends. All I've got to say is that as Canadians, they are our friends. I consider it strange that a member of the New Democratic Party in this province would find something ominous in the fact that the Minister of Transportation considers the duly elected governments and their leaders in all parts of this conference as friends. They're not friends of just the government; they're friends of British Columbians, and that's who we represent at that conference.

Much was made of this issue yesterday by the opposition. The member has canvassed it again today by including it in her remarks. I've tried to answer fairly the proper way her questions could be dealt with. I've tried to give some background and also the opportunity in the way UTA works and the tremendous things we've been able to do for the disabled and the opportunities through the generous provincial funding to aid all classes of disabled, and the tremendous strides they've made in providing this bus service in a number of communities of this province and eventually all of them as the needs arise. I hope that answers the member's query.

MS. BROWN: No, it doesn't answer the member. You have not made a commitment.

I'll defer to my colleague, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll allow debate to reciprocate. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: If I'm not permitted to defer to my colleague, then I would just like to say to the Premier that I want the record to show that on more than one occasion I have requested on behalf of the nearly 5,000 blind people in the lower mainland that his government pay $25,000 to ensure that their bus passes are transferable. He has refused that. Out of a budget of $6,636,400,000 he has refused to earmark $25,000 so that the blind people in the lower mainland can have the bus pass transferability. That's all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member may not come to that conclusion. For her own advantage she is putting the response in her own terms. I did not say we would refuse to help the disabled in this province. In fact I've said that the ability is there now under generous government financial assistance for agreements between the various bus regions in this province and the UTA. I have said that I am concerned about them, and I will speak to the UTA on their behalf. They already receive very generous government assistance in order to undertake transit provision in all regions of the province and also to meet special needs. So rather than refusing, I'm saying that the money is there in the existing large amount of sharing that we have. Rather than disregard these people, I will in the appropriate way, rather than trying to make political hay out of it in the Legislature, in a real way go to work with the UTA to see if they can accommodate them. My goal is not to get a headline over this situation, but to get something for the people who are disabled and blind. The appropriate way would be to approach the UTA, who have this opportunity now to have agreements between transit districts, the UTA being the provincial authority that is two thirds funded on its deficit by the provincial government.

I also pointed out during the debate that this government has additional aid for the disabled in this province. Where we deal with the buses for the disabled that are now in a number of districts, the provincial share on the loss is about 90 percent. Rather than leaving the impression, as the member attempted to do, that this government did not care for the disabled and those who may be handicapped in this province, in fact we have done more in the last few years, not only through the Ministry of Human Resources but in the very

[ Page 6577 ]

establishment of the UTA, to provide transit systems to the disabled in many districts in this province that not only didn't have bus systems but didn't have properly constructed buses tailored to their needs. We make it financially attractive for that to happen, and if there is a category in the 24 bus districts within the UTA that should be encouraged to have some reciprocity, then certainly....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, having thought over what the Premier said, I think that he owes the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds and the Legislature an apology. What he did was unparliamentary. He accused the member for Burnaby-Edmonds of using this Legislature for political purposes, surrounding the plight of the blind people. He said that she was doing it because she was politically motivated in the Legislature, instead of being concerned about the blind people. That's questioning her motives. As you know, Mr. Chairman, that's not allowed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. I will ask the hon. Premier if he has imputed any improper motive to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. In my answer I said that I have attempted to deal with it.... Because I care about these people, I have not attempted to use the issue in a political way. If the member for Prince Rupert feels that he should take offence on behalf of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is no longer in this chamber while we're discussing the issue that she introduced, then I certainly will withdraw any allegation that she is not honourable or sincere — as we all know her to be in the causes that she raises in this House from time to time.

I only wanted it to be very clear to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds — and to the member for Prince Rupert, who is now fleeing the House — that I didn't like the impression created by the question, nor the suggestion; nor did I feel I had to ask for an apology when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds tried to assert that I had refused to care for the blind people we were discussing in relation to their transit needs. I wanted to make it very clear that this government, and I as the Premier, have a very great concern for the people of this province, whether or not they are handicapped or disabled; and the special concerns of those who are disabled are of special concern to me.

I find it offensive that there may be some in society who feel they have a corner on morality and caring, when in fact this government in the last five and a half years has done more to assist people, particularly those who need help in this province, than any government has ever done. When you want to talk about the development of social programs and assistance to people.... I have dealt at some length with the assistance to people that we've given and that was never given before — not by the previous government or others. That is to deal with transit. I also want to say about services to people, whether it be in their health care.... This government has brought in programs that are innovative and are being looked at by the rest of the country. Let me end the myth that somehow that noisy little group over there has a corner on morality. They had an opportunity to be government and I never saw them introduce dental-care plan in this province — but we did. I never saw them introduce a shelter aid for the elderly renter, an innovative program that helps the elderly and doesn't force them into institutions — but this government did. I never saw them introduce a long-term care and extended-care program when they were government — but this government has. I want to tell you....

MR. BARNES: Tell us about your housing policy. What about your housing policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Vancouver Centre has the nerve to mention housing. They were the authors of the greatest disaster this province ever saw: the Housing Corporation. In comparison with what it did, the private sector, given very little incentive and opportunity, made it look sick. Housing stock provision has traditionally been and can only be met by the private sector. I have a great belief in the small contractors and the ordinary workmen in this province; they have traditionally provided the housing in all parts of this province, given the opportunity to continue to get on with the job.

There is no magical answer in setting up a Crown corporation that can build houses magically and mythically. It faces the same high costs through the federal government's policy of high interest rates. It faces the same problems as the private sector, but it has some problems of its own. That's its inability to efficiently and expeditiously produce housing when it's needed. We can witness the example of a housing lot development undertaken in Port McNeill right next door to a private development — the same type of terrain and conditions — and we have heard before in the Legislature of the higher costs incurred by the government in producing those lots. It's a textbook case because the adjacency and the timing were very similar. That has been pointed out to me by those who have been on council in Port McNeill for many years, as I visited there both when I was in opposition and as Premier. There is no way we are going to repeat those mistakes, Mr. Chairman.

This government is very proud of its record in the field of social services. We are very proud of those things we have been able to accomplish. Somehow, when members take offence in this House, and feel that their concern for people is questioned, I want them and the people of this province to know who has introduced those programs. Those programs of shelter aid for the elderly, long-term care and dental care.... I want them to know who brought in municipal revenue sharing to help our municipalities. I want them to know who brought in the UTA and a transit system that is providing transit not only for the people of this province but for the disabled as well. I want them to know who has done those things and more. Should I be called upon to complete the list, I'm quite willing to stay here and compare that list to social innovations introduced by any government in this province or any government in this country. I believe the people of British Columbia are well served with their social services.

There is a problem with the growing escalation of costs of public services. It faces not only this government in British Columbia but governments across this country. It threatens our ability to deliver those services that we are committed to. Yes, the government is concerned with trying to rationalize balancing the income that it has with the outgo, to make sure that those programs are never threatened because the economic base isn't there to finance them. I want to tell you that, given some opportunity, if I am requested to do so I can expand on that list for the members who may have failed to deal with this when the ministerial estimates came up earlier in this sitting.

[ Page 6578 ]

MR. DAVIS: I want to talk this morning about two subjects on the Premier's estimates. One is housing, and the other is immigration: affordable housing in a period of high interest rates and immigration at a time when our provincial economy is heating up as never before.

Reference has already been made at length to federal-provincial relations. Housing, in my view, is primarily a provincial responsibility. I know that Ottawa has often taken financial initiatives in this area, but housing comes under the general heading of property, and property is provincial under our existing constitution, the British North America Act.

Immigration is different. It is a shared responsibility under the BNA Act. It is federal and provincial. Here again the province — I might add the provinces generally — have been slow to accept this particular responsibility. Unlike Quebec, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, British Columbia doesn't have a formal agreement, for instance, with Ottawa on numbers and skills: in other words, the nature of the immigrant flow from abroad. It therefore has less say than I think it should have as to the timing, mechanisms, skills and nature of the immigration flow to this busy province of ours.

But let me deal first with housing, Mr. Chairman. We need affordable housing as never before. Other Canadians are coming to British Columbia to find work. They're coming in record numbers. They have been coming here over the last two years at the rate of around a thousand a week. This population shift westward across the nation, together with the arrival of a large number of immigrants from Europe and Asia, is bound to cause a housing problem. It is responsible for an overall population growth rate of between 3 and 4 percent a year, compared to 1 percent for the nation as a whole. Rarely in our province's history, indeed, have we experienced a sustained population growth rate, and consequently a demand for housing, of this order of magnitude.

I refer particularly to affordable housing, housing that the new homeowner can afford, given this immigration and today's high interest rates. Land prices are high, construction costs are up, and on top of it all we have the current high cost of money. Therefore monthly payments tend to be out of the reach of the typical first-home owner. They are too demanding; they take too large a share of the typical family's income. Too little is left to look after other necessities of life such as food, clothing and transportation. We have a problem of land in British Columbia. We don't have enough serviced lots close to our principal centres of population and industry. But money for housing at a reasonable cost and at a monthly rate that the first-home owner can afford is the real problem. It's certainly a far more pressing problem than serviced land availability. The money problem is something which we in this Legislature must do something about. In my opinion we can do something about it if we organize our provincial affairs in the right way.

One of the ways I believe our government can help the prospective homeowner is to subsidize interest rates, but there is a limit to this kind of assistance. After a few years the government would have to stop. It couldn't go on subsidizing interest rates for a growing stock of homes year after year, because it would eventually find itself so heavily committed to interest payments of this type that it wouldn't be able to take significant initiatives in other areas like education, human resources and health, the need for which is increasing even more rapidly than the demand for shelter itself.

Rather than building up this kind of debt, I would urge a different approach from subsidizing interest rates. I'll refer to it as the equity approach. It's a partnership approach. The government could become a joint owner of each new residential property for a time. It could be a short-term partner for the first-home owner, who would be the sole owner of the home in the end. It could buy shares in the home-owning business. It could be a temporary shareholder in the sense that it participated along with the lasting owner of the home in its rising market value in the early years of each homeownership plan. There would have to be a time limit put on the period during which the government was a partner — let us say five years. For the first five years the first-time homeowner would only have to make payments on a first mortgage. He or she wouldn't have to make payments, principal or interest, on the government's equity in the home. If the equity amounted to one-quarter of the original cost of the home, then the monthly payments during the first five-year period would be reduced by 25 percent. After the first five years were up the government would cease to be a partner in the equity sense. Its share in the home would be converted to a second mortgage. According to this plan this second mortgage would be equal to the then inflated fifth-year market value of the home. In other words, the government would have participated fully as a share-owner during this first five year interval. The second mortgage which it then took as the price of its share in the home would bear interest at the government's then current borrowing rate. This second government-guaranteed mortgage could be paid off over, say, a 20-year period. This would keep the monthly payments down up to year five and after year five. It would help to beat inflation at least for the time being.

As the ongoing homeowner's income would be higher at the end of year five than it was at the beginning of year one, he or she would be in a better position financially to carry a first and second mortgage beginning in year six. The government would have seen its equity appreciate in the meantime. Its share in the home would have risen along with other market values. Also it would get its money back at its future inflated value when the second mortgage on the home was eventually paid off.

To repeat, Mr. Chairman, I would have the government enter into a partnership with the new homeowner. I would see the government act as a partner for five or six years. It wouldn't ask for any return of principal or interest during that five- or six-year period, so the monthly payments that the first-home occupier has to make are much less than they would otherwise be. When the home owner-occupier is in better shape as a result of increased earnings and as a first mortgage is partly paid off, he or she can then assume full responsibility. They take over the government's share at its market value and pay it off — principal and interest — by way of a second mortgage which the government agreed at the outset to guarantee as part of a long-term contractor package designed to make home-owning easier for those who would otherwise have to rent their accommodation from someone else. The big catch, of course, is the funding of the government's share in literally thousands of new homes. Large sums of money would have to be borrowed on the open market by a government agency or corporation specially constituted for this purpose. These moneys might be accumulated in what could be referred to as a B.C. housing equity fund, and they would pay those who lent money to the fund interest at the government's daily borrowing rate. Together with an allowance for administration, this would be used to help to build and maintain homes while they were in

[ Page 6579 ]

the government partnership phase and later would be replenished, as the second mortgage on these homes was paid off. A plan of this kind could be used to help various categories of homeowners. However, it should be introduced in stages. First-home owners would qualify first. Perhaps a period of residence in the province would also be required. They would have to make a down payment equal to, say, 15 percent of the initial cost of the home. That, together with the government's 25 percent, would mean that their first mortgage could be limited to 60 percent of the initial cost of the home, an amount which could be financed by the private capital market with relative ease.

A program of this kind could be expanded. It might be used to help older people finance their current expenses in later years. They could sell part of their equity in their home to the government agency or corporation on the understanding that the latter would share on a pro rata basis with the original owners in the enhanced market value of the home when it was eventually sold. Again, the government would be made whole when the transaction was completed. It would have been a partner in the process. It would have held part of the equity in the home for a time. Its principal reward would be in sharing in the appreciated value of the home, itself largely a product of inflation.

This government partnership approach does not head off or cancel out any other forms of assistance to homeowners. Crown land can be made available at reduced prices, and the financial advantage in this case capitalized as part of the government's equity. Interest rates on first mortgages can be subsidized. Interest rates can be recognized as a cost by individuals preparing their provincial income tax returns. But these forms of assistance tend to be gimmicky, compared to a government equity-sharing plan. The plan itself is relatively straightforward. It's easily understood. It's self financing over the long run, and it can be adjusted so as to minimize monthly payments in the earlier, more difficult, years — years of inflation, years of growth here in B.C. The government will naturally be taking a risk, but homes aren't a major risk these days. Home values are bound to rise with inflation. What better partner can a homeowner have than the rest of the people of the province, all of whom will benefit in one way or another from new home construction and a greater degree of home ownership in B.C.

The government, the people of the province, will be lending their credit. It will be putting on the line the credit of all the people of the province. In other words, it will be using its "social credit," and it will be using it in a constructive and thoroughly helpful way. It will be providing new homes for people who need shelter, people with jobs who are prepared to pay their way, people who need help from the rest of our community in order to overcome the financial difficulties which accompany inflation, but also people who, once the initial problems of financing are overcome, will have a real stake in our provincial economy. In turn, being helped will help others. A government-backed home equity plan working in this way will not only make more people feel at home in B.C. but it will also make home ownership a result of province-wide sharing in this way.

This government has already set its course in respect to northeast coal. It is taking an equity position in B.C. Rail. It's giving B.C. Rail, say, $500 million in instalments to pay for the new Anzac line through the Rockies to Tumbler Ridge. Because it is equity, or shares in the railway, the government won't ask for any return of principal or interest, at least for a time. It won't get any return of principal, at least in the 1980s. If it's prepared to help finance a major resource export industry in this way, why would it do less for tens of thousands of new homeowners in the province? They are, or are in the process of, becoming British Columbians. They will buy out the government share in their home and pay off their second mortgage right down to the last cent. They are less of a gamble, much less than northeast coal. So a provincially backed home equity plan should be launched forthwith in my view.

I can put it another way in year-by-year dollar terms. Next spring the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be asking this Legislature for $100 million or thereabouts in his estimates. This vote will buy $100 million of equity in B.C. Rail. B.C. Rail will use it to pay the construction costs which it has incurred during the current year on the Anzac line. A year later in the spring of 1983 the minister will ask for $200 million or thereabouts. This vote will buy $200 million of equity in B.C. Rail. Again B.C. Rail will use these funds to pay for the building of the new line. In 1984 there will be another $200 million vote. This will bring the province's equity in B.C. Rail up to $500 million. Hopefully, that will complete the building of the Anzac spur to Tumbler Ridge. As citizens of British Columbia, we will have a $500 million equity in B.C. Rail, an investment which doesn't have to pay either principal or interest for some years thereafter.

Imagine what we could do with a similar $100-million or $200-million-a-year home equity program. It could build, or at least launch, the construction of between 5,000 and 10,000 new homes each year in British Columbia. This is the kind of investment which I believe our government should make in home building in this province. It would have a similar impact to northeast coal on our expenditures out of Victoria, but it could be balanced by a government home equity corporation borrowing these funds. In other words, funds would flow into new home construction and after five or six years begin to flow back again into the fund in inflated dollars capable of paying a full market rate of interest once the government share in each home was converted to a mortgage with a limited life.

Obviously I'm not talking subsidies, or at least long-term subsidies, in the case of housing. I'm talking about borrowing against assets in which the Crown first holds a share and later holds a mortgage — dollars recovered over a 25-year period. We will be adding materially to our housing stock.

I hope I'm making myself clear, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying that a government which is prepared to take an equity position without a time limit in an export industry involving a non-renewable resource should also be prepared to take an equity position in something as solid and socially desirable as housing, especially when its equity in this housing is for a limited period only. When that period is over, it will be able to recover its investment in full and with little risk in a rising market. Northeast coal is a gamble as compared to housing. It has a much lower B.C. content than new home construction. It will also have to compete with other energy projects in other places. New homes in British Columbia are a safe bet by comparison. I'm not saying that we should forget our resource development programs — in other words, our job-producing opportunities. We need them to provide the income that will help pay for the new homes. We should take risks. Certainly private enterprise should take risks. If we're prepared as a province and as a government to hold

[ Page 6580 ]

equity, and only equity, in B.C. Rail's Anzac line to our northeast coal fields, then we should also be prepared to hold an equity position for a reasonable time in new homes in British Columbia. For a lot of British Columbians this will be home-owning made easier. It will do every bit as much for private enterprise and a feeling of belonging for young people, and our recent arrivals here in B.C.

Housing, as I said at the outset, is, at least in my opinion, largely a provincial responsibility. Immigration is a shared responsibility. If I were the government, I would do what a number of Canadian provinces have already done in respect to immigration. I would negotiate a federal-provincial agreement. I would have some provincial say as to who came to B.C. directly from abroad, what their qualifications were and when they came. I wouldn't want them to settle all in one place; I would want them to go where the opportunities are, and I would want them to mix freely with British Columbians everywhere in B.C.

The face of our province is changing. More people are coming to British Columbia from the rest of Canada and abroad. They are coming to share in our prosperity, but let's not lose our basic values in the process. Home ownership and a feeling of belonging in and to our provincial community are values which we prize above all else. With the government launching a B.C.-backed home-equity plan, we will be highlighting these values. We will be encouraging a way of life and an attitude towards one another which is without parallel anywhere else in the world.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, because I know that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) wants to say a few words. I want to respond to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and say that it is a very innovative plan that I know he and a number of his colleagues on this side have discussed, along with other alternatives in the same type of program, such as a portion of rent being allocated to option to purchase at a similar conversion date — four or five years. Both concepts have great appeal to me, because our government and our party do have a philosophy of individual home ownership as opposed to renting from the state, as it were. We want to continue to maintain British Columbia's position, not only in the Canadian community but also in the North American, of having one of the highest percentages of homeownership per population. Not only do we want to see that opportunity extended to the young people, who have a lifetime to fulfill their dreams — it's popular to talk about the young; I have four sons out working who want to own their own home someday — but I'm also concerned about those in their thirties or forties or fifties who don't yet own their own home. They don't have as much time to achieve that opportunity. I thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. The only further comment I would make is that you must have investments of this kind not only in assisting homeownership but also in creating jobs for the people who are going to live in the houses. It's important to balance job opportunities, which projects such as northeast coal will provide, with the fact that someone may just be coming to live here. There must also be something for them to do, or we'd be dealing with a lot of abandoned houses, such as we had in Terrace in 1974 and 1975. We don't want to face that problem again in any part of British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have two very brief topics for the Premier. I wasn't going to mention the Premier's junket utilizing the Queen of Prince Rupert, because it has been well canvassed. But in view of the Premier's reply to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I think I will say just a few words. The Premier's response was, of course, that this would not create a problem, that it would in fact alleviate a problem to pull that vessel off the run for three days — at a cost of $106,000, not including lost revenues. The fact is that people of the central and north coast will feel the inconvenience. Those people as well have a right to decent transportation. I agree that we should be good hosts in British Columbia to the first ministers of our provinces. They are always good hosts to us when we take these trips for various conferences.

But I think this is going a little too far, particularly in view of the fact that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was asking for $25,000 for bus passes. Part of this cost of $106,000 could have gone for bus passes for these blind people. This year at Malaspina College there have been cutbacks in classes for disabled people and certainly cutbacks in the homemakers, plus an increase in cost to homemakers. That's not the reason I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman. I've raised the two topics I want to discuss in this House before without success. As a previous speaker reported, the Premier does have the power and the authority to make decisions on these two matters. One involves the community of Ocean Falls. I won't go through that long litany again; I have many times in this House. I want to remind the Premier that more than a year ago the government promised to introduce another type of industry into that community. To quote from the government's own report, I'll just read one paragraph on page 7:

"Recent studies have shown that Ocean Falls can continue to provide one of the best people service centres on the mid-coast. Facilities now in place for medical care, schooling, housing, provisioning and transit service could not be readily duplicated."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The fact is that we have 140 people left in Ocean Falls. There's absolutely nothing happening and no way for those people to make a living. The government promised that a new industry would be located in that community, and nothing is happening. We have no commitment from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is responsible to this Legislature for that Crown corporation. We have no commitment from Mr. Williston and no commitment from that government. People up there have the right to know what the future of that community is. I wish the Premier would get up briefly and explain that to this House. Give those people some hope. Should they sell out or move out? Many are being forced out of that community at the present time. I know that it's an old story. The press have sort of forgotten that the community ever existed. The place shouldn't have been shut down in the first place, but the fact is it has been shut down over a year and nothing has happened.

The second item I want to discuss very briefly with the Premier — it's a topic he's very familiar with — is the lack of public hearings on certain big-ticket energy and hydro projects. I'm talking specifically about a proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. I'm sure everyone in this Legislature is in favour of supplying Vancouver Island and other parts of this province with that cheaper, cleaner energy resource. We feel that there should be a full public hearing into

[ Page 6581 ]

the route selection for that proposed pipeline. When I raised this topic under the estimates of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland), that minister indicated to me that he knew very little about the cost of that project. The economic impact of that project, where your government and B.C. Hydro are going to be committing literally hundreds of millions of dollars.... Your government and B.C. Hydro still do not know if that is the best possible and the most economic route to cross the strait, whether it should be north or south, or whatever, and if it will be in the best long-term economic interests of this province, as well as the environmental considerations which have to be thought out. So I'm suggesting that the Premier can, if he wishes, order full public hearings so that all sides, parties and peoples can be heard on this very important matter. That is all we've ever asked on that particular project.

MR. RICHMOND: As this is the first opportunity I've had to speak in the House, I would like to thank all members on both sides for making me very welcome on May 28. It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to be here. To this point I have been extremely well treated by members on both sides of the House, for which I am very thankful.

Mr. Chairman, as this is my first speech, and I didn't have a chance to speak during the throne speech debate, or through many of the ministries' estimates, I would ask some latitude in the range of my remarks, and respectfully request the indulgence of the House. I will keep my remarks as brief as possible, as today time seems to be of the essence.

I don't have to tell anyone in this House about the Kamloops constituency in general. It has been well represented in this Legislature over the years. However, in the last several months to a year the Kamloops area has been experiencing a tremendous boom in the economy. Yesterday the Premier was chastised from the other side of the House for not talking about the economy in this province. You don't have to talk about the economy in this province: all you have to do is take a look at an area like Kamloops. Thousands of tradesmen are moving to the Kamloops area, and they're all finding jobs and making more money than anywhere else in Canada. You can't hire a tradesman in Kamloops right now, and that, Mr. Chairman, does not happen by accident. It happens due to the sound economic policies of a government that is committed to providing job opportunities for all of the people.

Kamloops is experiencing a boom, one that has been brought on by the positive actions of this Premier and this government. It has precipitated tremendous activity in the mining industry in and around Kamloops. Mining exploration is now healthy again. New ore bodies are being discovered and new mines are being opened — mines like Highmont that have been put on hold for nine years and just opened last month. And soon the giant Valley Copper is expected to be announced later this year. This increase in mining activity alone has accounted for a large influx of people into our area, seeking and finding new, well-paying jobs, and again adding to the prosperity of the region, but bringing with them of course some inherent problems, some problems of prosperity such as rental accommodation. Many of the people are young; they're fairly transient people, and they require reasonably priced rental accommodation. The vacancy rate in Kamloops in the last three years has gone from about 20 percent down to zero. This Premier and this government are aware of the situation and are addressing the problem, and solutions will be forthcoming shortly. It's the type of problem that is not solved overnight. Some of the problems inherent in a booming economy are affecting our area, as they are affecting all areas of the province. But they are problems preferable to the ones we experienced when people were leaving this province.

People of Kamloops and the constituency know that the increased mining activity, for example, in the Highland Valley will put additional pressures on all of our transportation and highway systems. The government is aware that many more dollars will have to be spent upgrading our highway systems if we're to move the volume of traffic anticipated, and to prevent an increase in the number of accidents. I am pleased that this government had the vision and the foresight to plan the Coquihalla Highway. It's a beautiful route through the mountains that will cut an hour off the trip to the coast from Kamloops.

Another situation that is brought about by the influx of people into our area is the need for daycare. There are excellent daycare facilities in Kamloops, and it would appear that the number of single parents is increasing at a rate faster than can be accommodated in these centres. I would like to point out that I've had several meetings with single parent groups. Not all, but by far the majority of them are not looking for government-subsidized daycare. They are quite willing and able to pay for their daycare. Most of them have excellent jobs, making good salaries. I think that the need is here to encourage the private sector with some start-up funding to establish adequate daycare facilities.

I would like to compliment the Premier at this time for his farsightedness in developing the Pacific Rim countries as trading partners for British Columbia. This area of the world will have a tremendous bearing on the industries in and around Kamloops, especially on mining but also on forestry — which includes our pulp production and ranching and agriculture. I feel that the interior of this province can look forward to generations of very successful and prosperous trade with the countries of the Pacific Rim. Along this line I am pleased to announce that the tenders were opened for a stretch of highway from Bullmoose to Tumbler Ridge just yesterday in the great northeast section of our province. The low bidder on this $11 million job was a Kamloops construction company. So the northeast coal deal is already providing benefits for my constituency.

I would like also at this time to commend the Premier for his stand on the constitution. I know that we're all tired of hearing about it. But how many of us realize or understand the bread-and-butter implications of the constitution. Ever since he's become Premier, Bill Bennett has led the way and seen the need for provincial input into national policies which affect the day-to-day lives of the people in Canada and British Columbia, and in Kamloops. I would add here that he's been ably assisted by the past member for Kamloops (Mr. Mair), and the current minister.

Some of these national policies, which affect us every day, are those of the Bank of Canada, which has an enormous impact on inflation and production, through interest rates and control of the money supply. Another is the Canadian transport system, which through its rate policies and freight rates determines the viability of existing and proposed industry, the federal policy, which affects the cost of living and the location and the mix of industry in the country, and of course an extremely important area, which, is jurisdiction over resources. I know the Premier realizes that we must look for ever-increasing cooperation with Ottawa if we are ever going

[ Page 6582 ]

to realize some of the opportunities that are available to all of us.

I would like to mention also at this time that the people of Kamloops and area and those downstream from Kamloops are very pleased that this government appointed a task force to study the problem of pollution in the Thompson River. It's very important to our area. The government gave that task force a strict mandate and timetable: to report within six months and come up with solutions to these problems — not just another study. I'm also pleased to report that I have spoken with Dr. Bob Smillie, the chairman of the task force; and he indicates that they are making great progress and have held several public hearings, and the response so far has been excellent.

I'm delighted that this Premier and this government have decided to name a mountain for Terry Fox. This great young Canadian was an inspiration to all of us. I can't think of a more fitting or lasting tribute to this young hero than one of our beautiful mountains. It is something that people of all of Canada will be able to point to with pride for all time.

I would just like to touch for a moment, Mr. Chairman, on the government ferries, which seem to be getting a lot of attention these last couple of days. Let me tell you that I ride the ferries all the time. I sit in lineups too — very short lineups, I might add. On Sunday, a very busy day at Horseshoe Bay, my wife and some friends and I did not have to wait in line for more than 20 minutes, although the lot was nearly full. We were able to get on one of our new jumbo ferries that swallowed the whole parking lot full of cars. We got good service and good food in the cafeteria. To me that's performance and that's planning, and it didn't happen by accident. It happens because the government had the foresight to build. This is a government that builds in all areas.

In the last day or so much has been made of the leadership and the stewardship of this Premier. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you and this House that this province, under the leadership of this Premier, is in excellent hands.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and talk about many topics, especially as they pertain to the Kamloops constituency, but as time doesn't permit I would like to close by thanking the Chair for its indulgence in allowing me some latitude in this speech to perhaps stray from the topic at hand. I hope I haven't taken undue advantage, because it would have been very easy. I would have liked to have spoken about the need for a second crossing of the North Thompson River — a need that this government is addressing — namely our bridge at Halston. I could also have spoken about the progress being made on our long-promised and long-awaited courthouse facility, but I will save those topics for an appropriate time, hopefully in the near future.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate to the Premier and to this House that I am proud to be a member of this Legislature and especially to be a member of this government. Once again I thank everyone for making me welcome, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence in the wide-ranging aspects of my remarks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I think all members should certainly compliment the last speaker on his first speech in this assembly, and also compliment the House on its degree of tranquillity, unaccustomed though we are to that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.