[ Page 4595 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Election Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4595

Mrs. Dailly –– 4596

Mr. Howard –– 4597

Mrs. Wallace –– 4598

Mr. Passarell –– 4600

Mr. Mitchell –– 4600

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4600

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

On vote 71: minister's office –– 4602

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Nicolson

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's with profound regret and alarm that we hear today news of an assault on the Quebec National Assembly. For those who may not have heard the news, a gunman, apparently equipped with an automatic weapon, gained entry this morning to the Assembly and began firing at employees who were within the chamber. It's my understanding that several persons were killed and as many as 20 were wounded — some critically, apparently. It's my understanding that an arrest has now taken place.

All members of the assembly would, I'm sure, agree that we pride ourselves in Canada with our tradition of access to our assemblies. Today's incident will obviously reverberate in all the assemblies of Canada. Mr. Speaker, perhaps on behalf of the government in the chamber and the members, you might express our regret and concern to the people of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, among our guests in the chamber today are students from Quebec, along with their host students from Delta Secondary School, and their teacher Mrs. Huxley. Perhaps those students will take our regrets back to Quebec.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, we too heard with extreme regret the assault upon the National Assembly in Quebec City. I want to extend, along with the government and everybody in this chamber and, I'm sure, everybody in this province, our sympathy and our regrets to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives. We express our abhorrence of this sort of terrorist activity with no seeming purpose to it. This is no way in a parliamentary democracy for anyone who may be discontented with whatever the actions of government or a legislature may be to deal with those subject matters. We join wholeheartedly with the government in our expressions of sorrow, sympathy and regret.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the wish of the Legislative Assembly, the Chair will send the appropriate message to the people of Quebec.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on a separate matter — and one which I think would have been considered quite important on its own at some other time but I'd like to mention it today as well — on behalf of the government we would like to express our regret with the news today that the U.S.S.R. has withdrawn from participation in the 1984 Summer Olympics. I think it is regrettable that a major participant in such an international event should find cause not to participate. The U.S.S.R. particularly is one of the major powers in the world, as well as one of the major participants in athletic endeavours, and on behalf of the government of B.C. we would like to express our regrets that the U.S.S.R. has found cause not to take part in the 1984 Olympics.

MR. HOWARD: One way of fostering international peace, brotherhood and harmonious relationships, regardless of the political views of any country, is through sports events of that nature, and we regret very much that the Soviet Union has seen fit to dissociate itself from this sort of activity. We would have hoped that it would participate, as all nations would, and ensure as much as we possibly can that through that activity we can look towards peace and security in the world.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: En français ici?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oui.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pas ici; on parle seulement l'anglais.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to present these amendments to the Election Act. I want to assure you that a great deal of thought has gone into these amendments, which will go a long way toward streamlining our present electoral process.

As you are aware, this act was last debated when my former colleague, Hon. Evan Wolfe, introduced the Election Amendment Act, 1982. The amendments before you today represent yet another step forward in substantially streamlining the present system without detracting from the basics of open and free elections in our democratic society. The amendments presented here are also worthwhile and positive for voters, candidates and provincial political parties. At this time I must stress that the changes introduced in the act are directed toward the continuing modernization of the election process during the eighties and in the years ahead. Provincial voters will be given increased opportunities to exercise their franchise by the addition of an extra day of advance poll voting, with the introduction of early voting in the office of the returning officer commencing on the day after and concluding on the day preceding the opening of advance polls.

Language has been removed which prohibited those persons who turned 19 between closing day and polling day from registering and voting on polling day.

The number of voters assigned to each polling station has been increased to 400 from the present 350. At the last provincial election such a policy would have saved approximately $200,000 without any disruption in the voting process.

Polling-day registration and continuing enumeration now make it possible to reduce the period of voter registration during an election to ten days from the present 14. The reduction of four days in this period will allow the registrar of voters the necessary time to prepare and mail the official where-to-vote notice cards, a function they were unable to undertake during the 1983 provincial election. In terms of dollar savings, it is estimated that election-period registration costs will be reduced by approximately $200,000 as a result of this change.

[ Page 4596 ]

With respect to the citizenship of an applicant, a change has been made in the area of persons who are entitled to be registered as voters. It will now require that to become a registered provincial voter a person need only be a Canadian citizen. With this revision British Columbia now joins the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, as well as the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the federal government, in that British subjects who are not also Canadians citizens will no longer be allowed to register to vote.

In addition to the preceding changes, persons who are confined to mental-health facilities by order of a court will no longer be eligible to register and/or vote in a provincial election.

When future elections are called, returning officers will be allowed to designate in advance the schools they wish to use as polling places; thus voters will be able to familiarize themselves in advance with where the polling places are likely to be. This move will also allow for reduced congestion at polling places through an increased number of prospective polling locations being provided. This will also afford the returning officer more time to devote to the selection and training of his polling officials.

There have also been a number of other amendments included to assist with the administration of election procedures, clarifying the definition of polling place, polling station, polling booth and polling division, and eliminating the requirement that election documents must only be transmitted by registered mail. The option is now given to the chief electoral officer to determine how the documents shall be transmitted; i.e., by courier, mail, election officials, etc. There are also amendments permitting election notices to be published in newspapers rather than having them posted in every polling division, clarifying that subscribers to candidates' nomination papers must be registered voters in the stated electoral district, and requiring that voters registering on polling day must show proof of their residence.

All but three forms — the writ of election, regular ballots and special ballots — have been removed from the schedule to the act. This action is being taken in order to eliminate the confusion resulting when revised forms are introduced to election procedures which differ from the forms depicted in the unrevised schedule of copies of the Election Act which are in general circulation. Similar moves have been taken in many other Canadian provincial electoral jurisdictions. When election forms are revised in the future, the Election Act schedule will not have to be amended.

The province of British Columbia is taking a significant step forward with these changes to its present election legislation. These are positive changes to the Election Act; therefore I take great pleasure in moving second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister; he always reads that so well. I also think he should be given credit for making some good changes in this act. There are, however, one or two changes which the opposition is concerned about and would like to discuss with you. I'd like to just go through some of our concerns about two major ones. I know the minister dealt with them to some degree in his opening remarks, but I think that it would be helpful to the House if in his closing remarks he could perhaps answer some of our concerns.

We are concerned about the fact that the registration period is being cut by four days. We feel that this will be placing some more severe restrictions on the ability of all party members to register voters after the writ is dropped. The closing day for the registration of voters is eight days now, rather than 12, after the writ is dropped. Here are some of our arguments against that.

I'm sure that the minister remembers, Mr. Speaker, that in 1981 the registration period was extended from nine to 14 days by amendments brought in by Social Credit at that time. Local registrars of voters at that time and since have had a difficult time — I wonder if the minister could make note of this one which concerns us — effectively locating premises for the voter registration booths. This was noted by a number of our party workers during the last election. Of course, that delay in finding proper locations effectively cuts the time available. Now this shorter time frame which the minister has just announced in this act will make it all but impossible to advertise the location of the registration booths and generally to organize an effective voter registration drive before the close. So I'm relating it to the experiences which party workers found during the last election, and that's why we're concerned that if they have that difficulty with location of booths, the shorter time is going to make it even more difficult.

[10:15]

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

Basically we feel that any change that shortens this period is an erosion of the rights of the voter in a democratic society to register and cast a ballot. We do not really see that the minister has any valid arguments for making this change unless he is able to counter some of those that we have just made.

The other concern that we have, Mr. Speaker, is in the restriction of the section 80. As most of the members here know anyway, section 80 refers to the ability to be able to register on polling day. I think we paid tribute last time to the measures brought in which reinforced the right of people to register on polling day; but now we find that one of the amendments of this act will restrict voting under section 80 to persons not registered in any electoral district, and requires evidence of current residence as well as of identity. We feel this will effectively restrict voting rights in the same way as the change of closing day. People who have moved but have not got around to reregistering should not be disfranchised...

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: They won't be? ...particularly given the shortened registration period. Maybe the minister, in closing, can answer that. He has said they won't be, so we'll be interested to hear in what manner this will be covered. Proof of identity plus the witness should be enough to establish the eligibility, which we have argued in prior times.

We also want to bring to your attention our concern that the poll size is increased from 350 voters to 400 –– I think all of us who've been out canvassing know that it's tough enough to canvass in some of those polls; now we're having the polls enlarged. I just wonder why the minister has increased it.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, our two main concerns deal with that shortening of the registration period and the changes affecting section 80. We have a number of other concerns on which we have three, maybe four, amendments to make in committee stage. We thought perhaps we would get those

[ Page 4597 ]

through. I remember bringing in about 40 amendments about five years ago, and I don't think one got through. So I thought we'd try for four this time. Okay? Anyway, we have a number of amendments to discuss with the minister later on. One includes lowering the voting age, which we feel strongly should be lowered to 18, as in the federal elections. I think the others can be left for the discussion on the amendments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you recognize me I'll be closing the debate, but I believe your colleague from Skeena wants to have his say very briefly.

MR. HOWARD: How did you know I was going to be brief?

Mr. Speaker, we have put forward on a number of occasions — and will do so again because we think it's rather fundamental in the development of election law — that if there is one piece of legislation in our democracy that belongs to people rather than to the government or to parliament, it's the Election Act. This is the law that deals with the right that was obtained by struggle over many decades: the right to vote in secret for a person of the voter's choice to be a MLA and sit in this assembly. It is people's legislation, and while it is too late to deal with this at this moment in the manner in which I'm going to suggest, nonetheless the argument is still valid. Namely, if nothing else, a committee of this Legislature should be involved in examining the proposed changes, providing an opportunity for the people of the province who may want to put forward their views about the law affecting their rights to do so, and not to have government presume that it is the custodian of the electoral rights of the people of this province. This occurs in other jurisdictions, where parliamentary committees are charged with the responsibility of listening to the views of people about a law which so fundamentally affects the people as does the election law.

There are two aspects. One, of course, is the administrative aspect of the law by the chief electoral officer. Particularly following an election, he would undoubtedly come across administrative mechanisms that need to be tightened up or altered to ensure the more orderly flow of the electoral process and the more orderly procession of people to exercise their right to vote. The other segment of the act is substantive in that it would relate to the fundamental right itself. The government has seen fit on a couple of occasions now to ignore that particular aspect of it and treat election law as if it were just another ordinary statute, when in fact it is more than that.

I want to put forward a proposition to the minister with respect to the removal of what had heretofore been, for a long period of time in this province — how long, I don't know, but certainly generations — the right of British subjects to cast ballots in provincial elections. The removal of that right by this law that's before us is correct. If we have any regard at all for what is Canadian citizenship, then we should apply that requirement to people who do cast ballots in provincial elections. There's no question about that whatever.

However, a certain disadvantage could occur. I understand that a person coming to Canada from another land, whether that land is England, Scotland, New Zealand or any other part of the British Commonwealth, or any other country which is designated as a country providing the citizens thereof who are resident of Canada the right to vote under the Elections Act, cannot apply for Canadian citizenship for three years. They have to be a resident of Canada for three years, as I understand it, before that individual can actually apply to become a Canadian citizen. Even after the application there is a time lag between the date of the application, after a minimum of three years, and the period of time in which the person appears before the citizenship court, takes the appropriate examinations, and actually receives the authorization of the citizenship court and the certificate of Canadian citizenship. We could be faced with a situation whereby a person as of this day, or as of the day that this bill becomes law, a proclamation bill, a regulation on whatever day that might be, a person could come could to Canada as of that particular day and would then have to wait three years before he could even apply to become a Canadian citizen. Because of an act of this Legislature, he may find himself or herself disadvantaged by the very fact of the requirement of the law.

I'm suggesting to the minister that he consider making that provision, removing what heretofore had been the right of British subjects to vote, effective as of a certain time in the future, taking into account that three-year period. He could even do it by saying "three years hence," so that those who come to Canada, fully intending to become Canadian citizens, but denied the opportunity to do that by virtue of the Citizenship Act of Canada, would have that safeguard in there and would not suddenly lose what up until this time had been a right extending back a number of generations. That was the approach taken by the Parliament of Canada some 10 to 15 years ago when a similar change was made in the Canada Elections Act. I think at that time it was a five-year period before one could become a citizen, so it was sought to come into effect at a later date. If the minister would look at that possibility, I think it would certainly be helpful for those people who would not yet, within that period, have the opportunity to become Canadian citizens.

I also want to express a concern about the question of election expenses — certainly those that are election expenses borne by the general public in the conduct of the election machinery itself. That's always a costly process in the printing of the documents, the advertising of it, the employment of enumerators, deputy returning officers and all the other necessary valuable functionaries who run the election. It is a cost factor which we should always keep in mind, but we should never fall into the trap of thinking that cost is the demand factor to restrict the right of people to vote. We have to maintain a balance on that one. Generally speaking, I think that has been done.

I want to talk about the cost of elections insofar as candidates and political parties are concerned. Having had the experience and having looked at the situation with respect to the structure of the federal Election Expenses Act, I think that we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we went in that direction. That has become a very restricted and cumbersome mechanism under which to operate. I am concerned about full disclosure to the public by candidates and by political parties of the source of election funds. I think if we were able to have related to the voting public by a legal requirement a disclosure of the source and amount of financial contributions to political parties and candidates, we would put the voter in a better position to make some assessment as to whether he or she as a voter agrees or disagrees with the source of funds and thinks there might be some connection with source of funds and subsequent activity in the Legislature. I think the disclosure aspect would be a simple move in that direction.

[ Page 4598 ]

[10:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you ever have a free credit card, during elections, offered you by somebody else?

MR. HOWARD: Did I ever have a free credit card? Now that you've raised the subject....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, because I've heard that innuendo before. I've seen letters to the editor in papers at home before. I have never had a free credit card, period. Any credit card that I have now or have had in the past, to charge up things on the same as anybody else, is paid for. That's the kind of innuendo that was distributed rather carelessly in the Skeena riding by associates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and even worse than that. I don't want to get into the last election and relate to this House some of the underhanded, slimy conversations that went on. It's not my purpose to get into that kind of conversation, which the minister enjoys immensely, wallowing in the mud and the grime. The minister can do that if he wants to, but not I.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the credit card.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps the minister, who keeps talking about some credit card, would be prepared to say in his closing remarks exactly what he's talking about, and perhaps he would also be prepared to say what he says in this House outside of this House as well. If it bears any resemblance....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, you bet. I'm touchy on this issue because I dislike liars. I dislike foul liars, people who tell absolute falsehoods about me and my family in the constituency of Skeena, as associates of the Minister of Forests did, and as the Minister of Forests himself acquiesced in. I dislike that.

MR. DAVIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill which deals with the expenses of candidates at election time, and I would appreciate it very much if the debate could be concentrated on the bill itself, not on an important matter which is totally extraneous to this bill.

MR. HOWARD: What an important point of order! I must congratulate the member who just rose for his perceptiveness about that. I'm pointing out a failure in the bill, and what I would suggest the minister would seek to do in dealing with source of funds. If he wants to know, from me standing in my place here, whatever costs have been involved in the conduct of any election I have been involved in, always and in every instance there has been a truthful revelation of those costs, which is more than I can say for some hon. members opposite.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In any event, all I'm talking about is the need to have that subject matter as a general requirement so the general public can examine what's involved and make some determination on the basis of who is paying for what or who is buying whom — just a simple kind of thing. Fair deal. The minister introduced....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There we go again. You should try to defend me from these accusations, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, it's obvious that the minister isn't the least bit interested in the truth of source of funds. Otherwise he would have brought in an amendment to that effect and would have been open and honourable in his dealings with the general public, and say: "Yes, we want all political parties and all candidates to reveal where they get their money from. We want all of the people of the province of B.C. to be able to identify what's happening."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair is having some difficulty in relating the current avenue of debate to the bill before us. While the member's comments may have some order under a different section of a different bill, the Chair is hard pressed to follow the particular line of argument under the bill before us at this time.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wish you had been here earlier to protect me from the onslaught from the other side; we wouldn't have got into that difficulty. In any event, I've made a couple of rational, reasonable, sensible proposals to the minister, which I hope he will take under advisement and consider putting into effect.

One of them was a political argument; that was the latter one, admittedly. We get into those kinds of things. The earlier one was something much more objective that related to the right of people to vote and whether the minister would consider that kind of safeguard and protective period of three years — or whatever it is — to guarantee a continuation of the rights and not deny people the right to vote. It would be most helpful to voters.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to reiterate my concerns about the change in this bill that requires people to be Canadian citizens. In effect, it deprives British subjects of the right to vote provincially. The timing has been mentioned by my colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I think it's important to realize that a British subject who voted in the last election a year ago could well be deprived of voting in the next election, because we are now maybe less than three years away from the next election. Even though they were alerted at this point in time....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not a convoluted argument, Mr. Minister. A British subject who voted in however many elections could now be alerted to the fact that they have to become a Canadian citizen, and make application. They have to wait three years before they can become a Canadian citizen. Therefore they would very probably be deprived of voting in the next provincial election. So the timing is extremely crucial in this.

Another point that is open as far as I can see is whether or not they have to be a Canadian citizen on the day the writ is dropped, or before that, or on election day. I note you are

[ Page 4599 ]

making a change relative to the 19-year-olds, to make it mandatory that they be 19 on the day the writ is dropped, rather than before election day, which is the way it did stand. What about these Canadian citizens? Which applies to them? Do they have to be Canadian citizens on the day before the writ was dropped, or are they entitled to vote if in fact they get their citizenship prior to the election? That point isn't clear under the terms of this legislation.

Speaking of the 19-year-olds, I'm very sorry that the minister has not seen fit to change the age to 18. Certainly that is the voting age in the federal area. It's the voting age in Alberta, our neighbouring province, and in many other provinces in Canada. It makes it very awkward for young people and discourages them from becoming involved in the electoral process when we have these two ages. I would urge the minister to consider that change. I'm easy on whether it's the day of the writ or the day of the election, as long as it applies in the same way to young people and Canadian citizens: that that is a consistent date and there aren't areas of confusion created as a result of the difference involved in the Election Act.

I note that there are some changes relative to scrutineers. I think section 18 says that there is to be only one scrutineer at a....

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: There's a principle involved here, Mr. Minister. Not more than one scrutineer at each polling station. The idea of one scrutineer.... Is that clear? Does that mean one scrutineer at a time, or one scrutineer for the entire period? If in fact it means that you can have only one scrutineer per polling place all of election day, this is really going to make it very difficult for any political party to ensure that the election is just and fair. So it is a matter of principle we're talking about here, Mr. Speaker: curtailing the ability of a political party to function freely and accurately during the election day procedures. I have some grave concerns about the intent of that particular change.

A section that I want to deal with more specifically is again a specific section, but it's a whole new concept in the process of elections because it adds something new to the act. What it says is that there shall be a polling station open every day except Saturday, Sunday and holidays, from nomination day right through to advance polling day. I know that the idea is to make voting more accessible, and that may be fine. I note that the same conditions apply to that polling booth which is held in the returning officer's office. The same rules and regulations will apply — I would assume there will be a scrutineer at that polling place.

Now is that one scrutineer for that entire period, or can that be any number of people for any political party? I don't think the act is clear on that. I don't think it says clearly what that actually means. It opens the day after nomination day. According to the act at the present time, nomination day is set by the writ; it's not declared under the Election Act. That leaves it wide open, at the discretion of the electoral officer — perhaps on the advice of the government — as to when nomination day is set. So we could have a very lengthy period at the returning office or we could have a very short period. It's simply at the discretion of the government, actually, and the electoral officer, because there is nothing in the act that I can find. If I'm wrong, I hope the minister will correct me. Section 40 of the act says that the writ will declare when the last nomination day is to be. What sort of ballots are we going to use that day after nomination day? How are we going to get ballots available the day after nomination day? Are we going to hand-write them? I wonder how thoroughly the minister has thought this out.

When I first saw this section, I thought perhaps it was going to do something for people who have difficulty getting to polls and polling places, but that doesn't seem to be the intent. While I appreciate the concept of having that longer opportunity, the advance poll period does discriminate against people who have planned holidays for a two- or three-week period; it's not long enough to accommodate them in that area. I appreciate the idea of having that longer opportunity. I think the way the section is worded does raise a lot of questions as to how it is going to be interpreted.

[10:45]

The same is true with the section 80 voters. It is now completely at the discretion of the deputy returning officer, or someone appointed to decide, whether or not a person is eligible to vote. How they prove their residency, how they prove who they are, is strictly at the discretion of one person, either the DRO or someone else appointed. I think that is pretty vague. Also, it puts that discretionary power very broadly and may well limit and disfranchise people who are really entitled to vote, certainly people who are moving or who have moved from one constituency to the other.

I'd like to talk briefly about the advertising time, the amount of advance notice. In rural areas such as yours and mine, Mr. Speaker.... You're fortunate in that you do have a daily paper in your constituency. I have no daily papers in my constituency, so if the writ is dropped the day after the papers go to the printing press, we have a seven-day waiting period before the next paper is out. I note that there is an intent to do more of the advertising through the press and not all the posting on power poles that we used to have. I think that's a move in the right direction, except that we must make sure that it is adequate, and perhaps there should be a direct mailing to each home or something a little more all-encompassing than just an ad in a weekly paper, because not everybody reads that weekly paper. There certainly has to be an assurance that people are aware, and I don't understand why the time is being shortened. Two or three years ago you lengthened it, and we agreed with that. We thought it was good that there was more time for the outlying areas to get involved in getting people registered, and knowing when the election was going to be and when the last date for registration was so that they had more time to do that. It is more applicable in rural areas where communications take longer, and the media are not so readily available. There is no mention of using the electronic media to make these notices available, and that is an area where a lot of people could be advised.

I don't understand why you've changed your mind. After changing it — lengthening it to 14 days three years ago — you're now shortening it even shorter than it was before. The argument that this gives more time to get the voters' list out — to have that prepared — is probably correct. Yet you're going to ask deputy returning officers to set up polls the day after nomination day.

The whole thing seems very convoluted to me, and proves over and over again the need to have some public involvement in drafting an Election Act so that we have a

[ Page 4600 ]

complete understanding and the public has an opportunity to participate so that their views are known. A legislative committee, an independent commission, someone other than a Provincial Secretary and his staff sitting in the seclusion of these precincts.... Yes, it is a very secluded atmosphere here, quite separated from the real world out there. These piecemeal changes seem to run in opposite directions to each other. You try to get the rationale for a specific thing but in another measure the rationale is completely opposite. There doesn't seem to be any consistent theme, rationale or purpose running through these amendments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's streamlined.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not streamlined, Mr. Minister, not at all. It is making it more difficult for people to participate in the electoral process.

MR. PASSARELL: To go along with what my hon. friend spoke about earlier, once I have the minister's attention.... Thank you, Mr. Minister. My concern is particularly with section 42 being repealed, and the new section 13 in which we are talking about local newspapers circulating in the electoral district once a month. It is my dilemma in the constituency of Atlin that we have no weekly newspapers per se. We have three local newspapers that aren't circulated throughout the constituency. They usually run off 100 to 200 copies, and they're sold or given away in the local community. My concern is that if we are repealing the section of issuing the writ, and it must show up in one of the newspapers circulating in the electoral district, and we're running with a 29-day campaign, it will be almost impossible to have it in one of the local newspapers in the Atlin constituency, since they don't circulate throughout the constituency — they are local newspapers — and they come out after a month.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to know what suggestions or recommendations the minister has as the new Election Act is going to be coming into force and Atlin is the only "remote" electoral district in the province. This new section 13 will almost become invalid when it comes to one of the local newspapers in the Atlin constituency publishing the writ. What are you going to do? Does the returning officer have some type of power to circulate the writ throughout the constituency, since there isn't a local newspaper that circulates in the Atlin constituency? There's no local radio in the Atlin constituency, and the television that is received in most of the constituency comes from Atlanta. I'm wondering if there is going to be some type of legislation or regulation that the minister is going to bring in so that they're going to be able to publish the writ on Home Box Office. Once we call an election in 1986, or whenever, is the returning officer for the Atlin constituency going to have the power to publish the writ through Atlanta television? I would like to know what the minister can do concerning section 13 with the remote district of Atlin.

MR. MITCHELL: One of the things I was curious to ask the minister, when he gets around to it.... I notice he has changed the rules so that you don't have to use a pencil for marking your ballot, and I was wondering if he would give serious consideration to allowing either an X, a check mark or a zero. The federal government allows anything for marking a ballot, as long as it clearly shows the person's intent and doesn't give any indication of identification. A lot of people are still marking with a check. I think it's equal as between the parties voted for; for some use a check and some use an X, and some use a pencil and some use a pen. I really don't think it's important. I think that while the minister is amending the act he should stop those 400, 500 or 600 people having their expression of opinion denied because they use a check rather than an X — following the manner of voting that is approved under the federal Elections Act. Let's standardize them all so that when a person walks into a polling booth he does the most important part: he expresses his preference in the manner that he is comfortable with, and the scrutineers and DROs can count them up in their proper position. Seeing that the minister is going to allow pen, I ask him to also allow the other method of marking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 20, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I guess I failed at the outset to indicate that the legislation we're debating now is legislation that can be more fruitfully discussed in committee stage, because I detected that each member who stood in his or her place was dealing with very specific sections of the legislation. During committee stage we will have the opportunity to fine-comb each and every section of the legislation. So not wanting to be repetitious or to take up the time of the House, I will limit my responses at this time, because I'm sure that those questions that have been asked of me this morning will be repeated again when the bill goes to committee stage.

I just want to respond to a very few questions that were asked. The first one I want to address is the reduction of the time-frame for registration from 14 days to 10 days. I have been assured that 10 days is ample time — and that 10 days is required, because it is necessary to get the voters' list in place in sufficient time to make it available to the candidates. That was a bit of a problem in the last election. Also, I'm told that now, because of the computerization of the voters' list that has taken place in the chief electoral office, they will be able to get the voters' list out much faster. But the 14 days is cumbersome and unnecessary as well when you take into consideration the right of each individual in British Columbia to vote under section 80. In the last election tens of thousands of British Columbians took advantage of voting under section 80. I forget precisely how many in my little constituency — not little in geography, but little in the number of voters.... There are about 14,000 voters in the little far southeastern comer of British Columbia called Columbia River. In that riding with 14,000 voters, about 850 to 900 people took advantage of that beneficial change that was made to the Election Act, allowing people to register on election day and vote. Consequently those people who had not registered previously have now blended their names into the computerized voters' list. We're getting more and more people registered because of having used section 80 to help make up the voters' list. So it is deemed unnecessary to have those 14 days; ten days is deemed to be ample.

[11:00]

I might say also that because of the length of time being 14 days in the last election in 1983, there wasn't sufficient time to allow those cards to be sent out to the voters in various

[ Page 4601 ]

constituencies informing them which polling stations they should go to to vote. We weren't able to send those cards out, and we want to send those cards out. That's one of the reasons why there is this necessity of reducing the registration period from 14 to ten days. I am assured as well by the chief electoral officer that increasing a polling station from 350 to 400 is not going to impose any hardship on any particular polling station.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'd have to ask him. I'm sure he has never canvassed door-to-door in British Columbia, because ever since the chief electoral officer has resided in British Columbia he has been the chief electoral officer, and he'd be out of place if he was canvassing door-to-door. I can't tell you what his role was. I know that he was chief electoral officer or in a similar station in the province of Alberta, but I can't tell you whether he ever went door-to-door in his lifetime; that's a question you'll have to ask him. In the meantime I'm assured that increasing it from 350 to 400 per polling station will not impose any hardship on that particular poll and will save the taxpayers of British Columbia approximately $200,000 in each election.

The members bring up the question of British subjects and the right to vote in British Columbia. I want to say that virtually every province in Canada now has gone to the position of allowing only Canadian citizens to vote. That's one issue that was addressed in socialist Manitoba not that many months ago, and they also have said that you have to be a Canadian citizen to vote. I think that introducing this legislation at this time gives ample notice to the people who are not Canadian citizens to become Canadian citizens if they wish to express their opinion whenever a writ is issued. I want to say that the majority of people who are British subjects and who have voted in British Columbia in elections gone by have been in British Columbia for more than three years; the vast majority of them have been in British Columbia for more than three years. For those who have been here for less than three years — I'm strictly talking about British subjects — they're being given notice now. They might have been here for a year or a year and a half; they have ample opportunity now to become Canadian citizens in order to exercise their franchise the next time the writ is dropped.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) raised the issue of reducing the voting age from 19 to 18. Well, that matter was considered, but one has to take into consideration the fact that the age of majority in British Columbia is 19. We're attempting, through this legislation, to beat the system with the issue of age of majority, and this is consistent. Other provinces have 18 years of age as the age of majority, and maybe that's why their election acts say age 18, but we are consistent with our approach in that respect.

I'll be glad to respond to many of the other questions. The member for Atlin talked about the fact that there are no newspapers circulating in his constituency. Well, maybe there wouldn't be right now, because the Vancouver Sun and the Province....

MR. PASSARELL: They don't even come up there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They don't go up there? Well, that's an issue I will address, and I'll attempt to get an answer for you, but I think the act only permits the ability to use newspapers for advertising. I think it's flexible, as far as its application, whether notices will be posted or newspaper ads be utilized. But I can clarify that to make sure that what I'm telling you is accurate. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you, but I will seek legal counsel on that particular issue to make sure. It's my interpretation that there is flexibility there; but, nevertheless, I'd be prepared to take that question as notice and bring the answer back at the very earliest opportunity.

With those few words, I take great pleasure in moving second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply, with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the last order that this House just passed was that the House consider the bill at the next sitting, not at the next sitting of the House after today. As the next sitting is Committee of Public Accounts, is it our understanding then that this bill has been referred to Public Accounts?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The answer, hon. member, is no.

MR. NICOLSON: What was the motion that was passed then? It was "the next sitting," and not "the next sitting of the House,"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, since this is the House, the sitting must be in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: Since this is the House, the House has the power to refer to Committees of the Whole, Select Standing Committees, special committees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk spoke to me in Latin, which gives me a slight problem. I would suggest that what has transpired is well within order. Perhaps the hon. member, who I know understands the rules of the House very well, is thinking about the way it was presented — that leave was asked. I might suggest that leave was really not required.

MR. NICOLSON: No, it was the motion.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I think that what the member for Nelson-Creston is referring to is the wording of the motion itself; the traditional wording is "referred to a Committee of the Whole House." I think the member is objecting to the fact that it was not specific enough. I would think that the experience in this House, and a traditional motion at the conclusion of second reading, is that it is always referred to Committee of the Whole House unless otherwise specified, and I suggest that that be the case now.

[ Page 4602 ]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 71: minister's office, $127,518.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, very briefly to the House, because I know that the members have been on pins and needles waiting for this vote, and I don't want to delay their opportunities too long, at $127,000 it is a bargain if there ever was one. You will know from the size of the vote, as with many of the other estimates, that the numbers are smaller this year simply because our total budget is smaller. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — I'm not dead sure about this — has taken the advice of the members opposite who are always asking for lower expenditures in government. One of our ministers had this to report when he was in southeast Asia and described our program. One of the officials remarked that the minister was describing the three wonders of the modern world: a railroad that makes money; a government that is reducing its deficit; and a bureaucracy which is becoming smaller. Each of those things — except the railroad, of course — applies to this ministry. One of the restraint measures, which I hope is only a temporary one, is dialing the parliament buildings and getting a recorded message — at least it shows everyone that we take restraint seriously.

[11:15]

1 was hoping that one or two of my officials would be here so that the members would get to know who they are and feel free to contact them for any matter of information at any time, because they are there to serve all members of the Legislature. The new acting full deputy minister — and he may be here any moment — is Mr. Andy Soles, who was formerly in charge of universities. We have, as of this week, an acting assistant deputy minister for science, Dr. Alan Comford, who some of the people here may know as a federal government official working for the Pacific environmental laboratory in Saanich. He comes to us courtesy of the federal government executive exchange program, as did his predecessor, Dr. Robert Stewart. Dr. Stewart has left British Columbia to head up the Research Council of Alberta. I wish him well and thank him for the service he gave to British Columbia. As one of Canada's outstanding scientists, he was an ornament to our government's civil service. He is a tremendous catch for the province of Alberta. In any event, he served us all well, and we thank him for his contributions and wish him well in the future. Mr. Soles is now here in person, having been introduced a few moments ago in the abstract. As the scholar of our government, please don't make any mistakes in grammar in his presence. He takes deep offence.

Very briefly, we've got the overall problem here of trying to reduce the size of our expenditures in trying to determine how to apportion fairly this reduction. Everyone has felt the pinch. Our own legislative salaries have been frozen. The civil service has been reduced. Our own universities complement of civil servants is seven in British Columbia; I think there are 250 in Alberta in the post-secondary division. We're lean. We're keeping it small. Our Science ministry has two people and, therefore, for the tax money, we try to give a lot of service to the people of British Columbia. When we ask organizations such as the universities to trim — they're facing a 5 percent reduction in their budget — we aren't asking them to do anything we haven't already done ourselves.

I want to congratulate the universities and their administrations for shouldering this request with good spirit and great effectiveness. They have not been universally supported by their faculties in accommodating themselves to this circumstance. The publicly supported universities have felt that restraint could not apply to them almost by definition. But in times of economic difficulty there can be no exceptions; everyone has got to shoulder their fair share. The universities have been asked to do this — not to do more than we have done ourselves as members or the civil service has done in seeing that its size is kept under control.

With respect to the science aspect of the ministry, high technology has been the industrial star performer in British Columbia, The parlous state of our finances has been due to lack of demand for our resource products around the world, reduced income and reduced economic activity. But while this has been going on in our traditional industries, the high technology sector has been posting spectacular gains, with an average increase in sales of over 20 percent a year; and we're beginning to see a pace accelerated even above that. We have been giving grants to the Science Council. We have established the discovery enterprise program under the Discovery Foundation to encourage this. If only we had started a decade earlier, we might not have had a recession in British Columbia — certainly not one of the magnitude we've experienced in the last few years.

The moneys we make available to the Science Council and the Discovery Foundation are administered by people who wouldn't ordinarily be available to government, simply because the calibre of those individuals and the other responsibilities that they carry would make them uninterested in the civil service as a career. We can use these people as volunteers giving their services to British Columbia, and as part-time people, by establishing the types of mechanisms that we have put forward in our Science ministry.

I'd like to put on the record now the deep gratitude of myself, the government and, I think, all British Columbians for the service provided by people who sit on the Science Council, the Discovery Foundation, the Universities Council and the boards of governors of our public universities. Without them the system really wouldn't function the way it does, and the value that the taxpayers are currently getting would not be there.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this exciting and long-anticipated debate. Before the one remaining opposition member falls into a deep sleep in his chair, I will turn the floor over to him.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have pleasure in introducing to the Legislature today students from Mount Douglas high school in my riding. They are Law 11 students here with Mr. Humber, their teacher, watching the Legislature in action. Would the House make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister may reflect upon the dearth of people in the House. But who's counting? I note that

[ Page 4603 ]

some members, having been given rather short notice, have repaired to their offices to get materials together. They're very concerned about these estimates; and we will see that as the days go on.

These are very important estimates. Before we get on, I would like to congratulate the minister for the wisdom of appointing Mr. Andy Soles as acting full deputy minister in his ministry. I certainly have had a long association with Mr. Soles — pre-dating, in fact, the days when I even knew he existed. His existence goes back so far that he taught my wife in high school and taught with my mother-in-law on the same staff; so it's very hard to say.... But I certainly knew him when he was principal of J. Lloyd Crowe in Trail, and as the head administrator who brought together Selkirk College after a rather inauspicious beginning, from my point of view — prior to his taking over the reins of power — and brought that college to some eminence in this province.

Mr. Chairman, these estimates and this ministry, the Ministry of Universities, and the department of this ministry related to science — the responsibility for technology may be dropped from the title but nevertheless is vested here, and also among other ministries; and certainly specifically for communications — are very important. Many other ministries concentrate on the present, and it is the responsibility of this ministry to concentrate, I think, on the future. We have to be looking at the future. We have to somehow lift our heads out of the immediate problems of today and look at where we might be five years or ten years from now, and beyond, and ask ourselves: will we be ready? Will we have prepared the youth of today or will we have totally demoralized the youth? Will we be disfranchising the energy of the young people who are out there today and simply importing experts, more like a colony than a mature country, a country that certainly by now should have achieved a degree of maturity?

Mr. Chairman, one hardly knows where to begin. One sees the signs in terms of headlines that have been generated. There certainly has been a lot of interest shown in post-secondary education, and particularly in universities. One sees a headline such as, "McGeer Shaken Up Over Tuition Boosts" in the Times-Colonist of January, 1984. Headlines such as: "UBC Hikes Fees 33 percent."

The government and the minister talk about the so-called railway that makes money — that is, after government has made an extraordinary grant to the railway to reduce all of its outstanding costs due to borrowings. He talks about a government that reduces a deficit. The government didn't have any deficit in terms of current spending for over 20 years; and it's only in the last couple of years that we've seen an actual budgeted deficit in this province, although we have been spending more money than we have been collecting since the 1979-80 fiscal year.

The minister talks about a government that gets smaller. The government may get smaller in terms of actual direct payroll, but the numbers of people who are contracted out.... Sometimes the quality of work being done by some of the contracted-out employment certainly leaves something to be desired. I see paint spatterings all over railings and such in the buildings here, which one wouldn't have seen had things been done professionally by the in-house crews that used to do that kind of work. And it's not necessarily smaller. If we're contracting out, we're still paying those salaries indirectly. What we are doing is also, of course, paying some profits to certain individuals rather than spreading the benefits of that kind of government spending over a larger number of people and enhancing the buying capabilities. We're consolidating that wealth in one or two hands where it can flee the country, because we don't have currency controls on money coming in or out of the country. One could get into quite a good economic debate about the effects of our current policies and megaprojects which tend to keep our dollar at a very high value, which I think is to the detriment of our major economic endeavours in this province.

Back to education. The government has certainly been making smaller the amount of money available for post-secondary education. The government has been getting more and more money from the federal government and there's been considerable growth; yet in the last couple of years there has been quite a drop. I have here a letter from the Hon. Serge Joyal to Mr. Lyle Kristiansen, MP for Kootenay West. It has to do with the closure of David Thompson University Centre, but also with something larger. He points out that there has been a failure of this provincial government to pass on the entire year-to-year increases in federal transfers allotted to provinces for post-secondary education purposes under the established programs financing, or EPF. He says it is most clearly demonstrated by the actions of the provincial government of British Columbia. This province, more than any other, has taken funds, which I think everyone agrees were slated for post-secondary education, even when the agreement was signed. This government was getting itself into some very hot water through some very questionable megaprojects, and it was forced to dip into these funds.

He points out that last October, and again recently, he wrote to the minister, as well as to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), to protest the B.C. budget announced in February. He says: "As you are no doubt aware, the government of Canada is currently re-examining the nature of its transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education." In other words, the federal government has been pushed too far by this misuse of funds slated for post-secondary education. One could argue that these funds are being put into the northeast coal project and into the subsidization of the export of a non-renewable resource, which even Mr. E.C. Hurd, former chairman of the board of TransMountain Pipe Line Co. Ltd., confessed to me he couldn't understand. If he can't understand such a policy, then I'm pretty sure that it is unsound.

[11:30]

In the case of our province, the government of British Columbia this year will be provided with total transfers of cash and tax point equivalents under EPF worth more than $928 million over these past two fiscal years. The funding represents a generous increase of 7.3 percent in 1983-84, and over the 1982-83 levels of funding in British Columbia, and a further 6 percent increase in 1984-85. These increases will be provided despite the provincial government's failure to increase its own funding to universities this year, and its decision to reduce university funds by 5 percent in the coming year.

Mr. Chairman, one could go on at some pretty great lengths, and there has been considerable correspondence back and forth. The government of Canada uses words such as: "severely disappointed in their expectations that increases in provincial expenditures for post-secondary education would keep pace roughly with the escalation of federal contributions. Nowhere has the disparity between provincial and federal commitment been more startling than in British

[ Page 4604 ]

Columbia under the present government," and that was the content of a letter to the minister.

If we look at what has happened to EPF entitlements over the past few years, in 1980-81 there has been a combination of tax and cash of $327,167,000, and it has grown annually. The growth over the previous year was 15.7 percent; 1981-82 a growth of 13.6 percent; 1983-83, a growth of 13.1 percent; 1983-84, based on a second adjustment to the advance calculation based on January 6, 1984, a growth of 7.3 percent; and, again based on a January 25, 1984, calculation from the Department of Finance, they are estimating a further growth of 6 percent for 1984-85, bringing the total for the fiscal year 1984-85 to $477,675,000.

The result of that, Mr. Chairman, is that if these trends continue we will find ourselves in a position where before these tax points were created and the EPF entitlements were established as they are today under this formula, there was a fifty-fifty matching of dollars between federal and provincial governments. If one were to look at these sources of funds.... I've heard the minister's arguments about this. I've heard about the Second World War and how we gave up the right to collect income tax during the Second World War, and the federal government never gave it back. When the Second World War started I wasn't even in elementary school, and when it was over I guess I was in about grade 5 or 6. I graduated from elementary school in 1949 and from high school in 1953. A lot of time has gone by.

The concept of income tax, for better or for worse — and I might sympathize with the minister — is something that I think is firmly established in this country and most countries of the world. Let's hope that there are some reforms in income tax, but I don't think that we can afford to wage that battle with the federal government over a precedent that was established when perhaps 50 percent of British Columbians weren't even born.

Certainly the students that are attempting to get access to university education today were not born, and to fight that battle with the federal government, and to put these young people today into the trenches of this battle, is most unfair. They are the casualties. They are the people who will not have access to universities because of these cutbacks, increases in tuition — a 33 percent increase in one year following on a previous increase which was rather large — changes in student funding, and all of these things. These are changing at a time when the need becomes the greatest — when there are few student summer jobs, and the quality of those jobs in both experience and pay doesn't begin to compare with the kind of summer job that was available when I was going to school. I could pick up a summer job at full union rates and have my choice of whether I was going to go up the coast or into the interior or stick around Vancouver and work in a factory.

There are not the choices; there are not the jobs. For those who do get the jobs, they tend to be more toward doing handyman work and things like that, and many young students are unable to find jobs at all. So then we're left with he problem of student assistance, and our response to that is to do away with the grant portion of the student assistance program altogether, having last year made the criteria even more difficult by having changed the definition of a dependent. Now this year we're going to a double-loan program where a student will get one loan from the federal government and another loan from the provincial government. So all of these changes are serving to tighten the noose on students.

We see also that some programs have been closed down. One of the special programs at the University of British Columbia in the education faculty — the special-education program for both gifted and handicapped students — was curtailed; it changed the educational plans affecting some 60 students. That was part of a cutback.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the economy is having tremendous effects, not just on the demand for teachers but on the demand for other kinds of graduating professionals. I think that we have to make a very careful decision in this province: are we going to be optimistic about the future of this province or are we going to be pessimistic about the future of this province? If we're going to be optimistic. We must continue to encourage young people to take post-secondary education; we must dispel this myth about the cab driver with the PhD — you know, the unemployed this, the unemployed that. There are a lot of unemployed engineers, for instance, today. There is a special report from the professional association, and the "Professional Engineering Manpower, British Columbia, 1983," points out the amazing change, where the unemployed, the people who cannot find work, are no longer the undereducated. But here, where you have people in what should be their best earning years, in their middle years and productive years, and high rates of unemployment, as documented in this report, we see another phenomenon, the graduating student from the University of British Columbia engineering faculty who can't obtain employment. Normally, Mr. Chairman — the second member for Vancouver South would certainly be aware of this — at graduation virtually 100 percent of the graduating engineering class have already obtained a job and, in fact, turned down many job offers. This past year at graduation only 8 out of 32 graduating chemical engineers had employment. Since that time a few have found employment, and many have gone into grad studies, which is not a bad thing in itself; therefore about 50 percent have some related form of deployment to engineering, either through employment or through graduate studies. But that leaves probably 40 percent to 50 percent unemployed. Even in electrical engineering, which is where most of the computer science graduates come from — at least in terms of engineering — only about 50 percent to 60 percent are deployed in some way, either in graduate studies or in direct employment. There's no indication of improvement for this year. Sometime in April there were six out of 42 in chemical engineering who had actually found employment — one could hope for a few more by this point in time — so this year we're finding the very same thing. Computer science.

What kind of a decision should we make? I want to know from the minister where we are heading. I want to ask the minister if he is taking an optimistic view of the future. Is he encouraging people that while there may not be immediate employment opportunities today, it is worthwhile to stick with post-secondary education? I have cited engineering because we tend to think of engineering as the.... Well, this government has talked about and stressed employability. Certainly in post-secondary education I don't think there have been too many professions that have been characterized as having a higher rate of employability than engineering. I ask the minister if he is taking an optimistic view of the future. Maybe this is a soft lob to the minister, but if he is, I

[ Page 4605 ]

want to know what he is willing to do to back up that point of view. How far is he willing to go? Should this not also apply in other courses in social sciences and education? Has the minister not seen some of the projections of the echo boom and the impact that that's going to have on elementary education in a few years? Is there not still a shortage of PhDs? In fact, one of the good effects of this is that we are seeing more Canadian students at the graduate level, particularly in engineering. I would like to know if the minister is prepared to say that we're supposed to take a good, aggressive, optimistic attitude toward education. Should we be encouraging or discouraging people? Should we not be encouraging people in almost all aspects of university education, including what might be termed as general arts education?

[11:45]

HON. MR. McGEER: The member has given a lot of scope for discussion. I'm going to avoid the temptation of getting into a very long debate, but I would like to deal with some of his concluding remarks very quickly.

Of course, in a general sense we should encourage our young people to seek education as much as they can and as much as we can afford it. No investment of the state brings a greater return than that. As far as this minister is concerned, I will always advocate that as a continuing policy. It applies to all aspects of education. Certainly we set our system up to do far more than to prepare people for the job market in the world of commerce. Having said that, I think it's perhaps fair for us in this Legislative Assembly to put the ball, if you like, in the court of the educational institutions. In the rhetoric of the sixties, when these institutions were undergoing unprecedented expansion, never to be duplicated again in the history of this province, they promised us that that investment would bring economic returns. If their forecast had been correct, Canada would not be suffering the indignity and pain of a recession.

So we have to now ask the universities and our educational institutions two more profound questions. The first question: were they the beneficiaries of the expanding economy of the state or were they the drivers behind that? If they were the drivers, why do we have a recession now? Is there some mix between the two? In some aspects do they depend upon the state and in others do they contribute to its economic benefit? I suspect that the latter is the case, that one of the responsibilities the institutions now have is to begin to define this. It's better for the legislatures who fund them, for the public that supports them and for the students who will attend them.

I want to go back to the beginning again, to reflect on the general remarks the member made with respect to the federal contribution and overall funding. I wish there was more money for the universities. I wish they hadn't had to increase their fees. I wish there were no fees at all for people who are in our institutions. The harsh realities of economics unfortunately dictate otherwise. The federal government did increase its transfer payments this year. All of that federal money was passed on to our institutions, and a lot of provincial money as well, but perhaps not as much as some of the federal politicians would have wished. Of course, they're not using tax money; they're using borrowed money — $30 billion of it. We would be in a sorry state in Canada if the federal borrowed money were used as a club to encourage the provinces to go deeper into debt as well. That combination is lethal for the economy of a country. And whether or not we can continue for long in Canada supporting the enormous federal deficits is really something that should occupy the attention of every citizen in this country.

Many of you may have become aware of the predictions of Mr. Kaufman of Salomon Bros., recognized as one of the leading economic forecasters in the western world because of the enviable track record he has had in predicting what was going to take place. He told us just last Friday that interest rates in the western world, particularly in the United States, would soar perhaps to unprecedented levels in the next two years. He laid the blame directly at the doorstep of the politicians, saying that they lack either the will or the public support to take the necessary disciplinary measures in spending that would avoid resorting to what he described as the only remaining disciplinary measure, which is increased interest rates. Quite frankly he described the economic carnage that is consequent upon moving interest rates from the 7 to 9 percent level — historically high — to the 20 to 22 percent level that we have experienced before and that he is predicting will visit us again. We have no choice in Canada but to go along with whatever interest rates are established in the United States, plus the premium that will encourage our capital not to flee the country. The only alternative is to place foreign exchange controls so that we can keep our interest rates at least equal to or less than those of the United States.

MRS. WALLACE: Are you in favour of that?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, because the problem is that we have been a net importer of capital. Once you slap on foreign exchange controls, then you're left pinned only with the capital that you have in this country, which you are trying to retain here. We can't operate Canada on this basis. All of our power developments in British Columbia, for example, are built with money borrowed abroad. We don't generate enough capital in this country to look after our physical plant expansion plus the current-account borrowing of the federal government. Therefore we require that ability to go into debt, like Argentina or Mexico, if you like. Because we're competing on international markets, we can't afford foreign exchange controls. That would put us in a worse position than we would face in our traditional way of matching or bettering international exchange rates. What I'm saying here is that we in British Columbia and we in Canada are going to become victims of the irresponsibility of politicians abroad over whom we have no influence, let alone control.

It starts right there in the Congress of the United States. But many of the things they practise, we unfortunately exaggerate. For example, we're running up a debt — all governments, federal and provincial — in Canada today three times the level of that of the United States. It's that debt level, one-third of what it is in Canada, that is causing Kaufman to predict interest rates going up over the 20 percent level.

If he is correct, we are going to have a depression that will rival what took place in the 1930s, and we can only hope and pray for responsibility on the part of politicians elsewhere. Now you people have decried the efforts of this government to reduce its expenditures — the first government in 31 years to cut absolute spending — and we did have to use Draconian measures. Only in the public service, however, and at that, not matching the sacrifices that had to be made in the public sector because of changes that were taking place abroad.

If there is anywhere we should be preaching, for heaven's sake, restraint in the public sector, it should be to the federal

[ Page 4606 ]

government, because they're the ones that are causing two-thirds of the problem in Canada. I can't find — and I must say that includes your own party over there — a realization that this is now a requirement, not just in this country but in North America, to keep our economic system functioning.

Well, I believe these to be the realities. Other members may disagree, but certainly we have the economic leader in the United States — the most respected man not associated with government, not an insider with information, merely an observer of the process — predicting dire consequences if governments don't begin to follow the "example" that we've set here in British Columbia. And I do say example, and I reiterate the experience of my colleague the minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). The wonders of the modern world, decreasing the deficit, shrinking the bureaucracy.... And you may disagree with the railroad that makes money, and we could get into a long argument about that. But the point about a railroad.... We had this argument over northeast coal, where the CNR wanted to write off all of the upgrading of their tracks at the current rates, whatever they were — 18 or 20 percent — and do it over 20 years. People sat down with pencils and said: "Well, you see, there's going to be enormous losses for that economic development." But here's the question that I asked: I said: "Well, at the end of that time, since it's all paid for, are you willing to give us the railroad?" The answer is: "Of course not." And what comes out of the Kootenays — as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) well knows from his former days — is that we've got a railroad that's been there a hundred years, and it's worth more than when it was put in. That's the point about considering the financing of a capital asset that doesn't deteriorate, in a somewhat different fashion from the furniture in a hotel that's going to wear out in a finite period of time.

Well, here we are in this polemic with Mr. Joyal — and I sincerely regret that — but we have to say these things about our own students. Much as I wish it could be better for them, our fees in British Columbia, even after the hikes, are still far from the highest in Canada. Our student aid program, while not as generous as it was, is still comparable to most in Canada. Mr. Joyal, who made all of these complaints about the Draconian measures in British Columbia.... After all, we're only following the same program and the same criteria that are part of his government's policy. We're doing exactly the same thing. We converted our program to their program, and nothing is said in praise of British Columbia when we pick up an $11 million shortfall through increases in student grants because the federal government failed to deliver on its promise of changing the loan ceilings. Never any credit for something like that, but of course lots of political criticism.

I have confidence, however, that no policies will be introduced by the federal government which have anything to do with British Columbia at all. In my view, confederation is like Animal Farm in British Columbia, where some are more equal than others. Those policies are going to be established to suit Quebec and Ontario, and British Columbia will go along with whatever is decided by the big three — Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, if members wish to pass some votes I'll sit down. We'll leave it to the opposition to adjourn if they'd prefer.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the 110th and 111th vital statistics reports.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.