1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7013 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Ritchie –– 7013

Mr. King –– 7017

Mr. Strachan –– 7021

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to ask the

House to welcome a man involved in ranching in my area: Mr. Bob

McHaffie from White Lake Ranch is up in the gallery.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. RITCHIE:

Last night the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was

very considerate when he announced that he would not bore us with a

lecture on economics. I was hoping that he would be in his chair this

morning because there seemed to be some confusion in his views of

liquidation and liquefying. For his benefit, I thought that, should he

be entering into the field of economics, he should understand that

whenever a business gets into that situation you usually liquidate.

MR. SEGARTY: Nobody caught that. Say it again.

MR. RITCHIE:

No one caught that, I'm told. Well, he had me somewhat confused. He was

talking about some business that got into trouble and their trucks were

to be liquefied, and I wasn't sure whether they were going to be melted

down or liquidated.

He said that the speeches from this side

of the House were both amusing and sad. He accused us of making

personal attacks. That is not so. We are merely attempting to point out

the weaknesses of the opposition members. The weakness of that

opposition is what we are attempting to point out. We are trying to

point out your negative attitude and, it seems, your total lack of

ability to provide this government with effective opposition. Mr.

Speaker, I'm here on my feet to oppose this motion, because I feel that

the greatest threat we face is the negative attitude of those who live

in a world of doom and gloom. It seems to me that the NDP lack-lustre,

negative, repetitious and sometimes conflicting attacks are simply a

coverup for their inability to offer the effective opposition they

should be offering. I believe that they are shackled by their socialist

philosophy, once described by Winston Churchill as "a party of duds."

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the performance by the opposition members in this debate so far.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to give us little score cards?

MR. RITCHIE:

No, I'm not going to mark cards, but I'm going to start with the Leader

of the Opposition, who said that he will fight tooth and nail for

British Columbia. In spite of all his funny, little attention-getting

antics, let's not forget his real dream, Mr. Speaker, and that is to

socialize Canada from sea to sea.

How he tore into our Premier over the activities of that group who would split

up this country! There was also some suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that back-bench

members were supportive of separation. Again I have been singled out as one

of them.

MR. LEA: You are one of them.

MR. RITCHIE:

Let me respond to that with some facts which have been officially

endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition and four other NDP MLAs

sitting in this House.

Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I

would like to go back to a speech that I have made many times on

certain occasions. I think it's rather fitting for this time, since

this sort of debate was entered into by the Leader of the Opposition. I

won't go through it all, but I will take parts of it just to put on

record how this member feels about the question of separation. I

believe I echo the feelings of my colleagues as well.

I was

not born in Canada, but chose to come here close to 30 years ago. I

chose Canada. I chose to leave a country for which I have much

affection in order to carve out a future here for my family. Because of

this, I can talk about Canada as one who has not always known its

benefits, as an immigrant who even now still marvels at many things

about my chosen country. Having chosen Canada freely, I do not wish to

see it shattered now that it has become our home.

There were

many reasons we chose to come to Canada. Perhaps all of them can be

summed up in one word: potential. This country offers people of every

nationality the chance to succeed through hard work. Such harmony, such

shared goals are by no means common elsewhere in the world. The

privilege of being a Canadian is the privilege of sharing in an

astounding natural wealth. Mr. Speaker, I have lost none of my

enthusiasm for its greatness; I have lost none of my desire to see it

remain the country I came to.

The potential I spoke of still

exists for new generations. In some ways it is even an unrealized

potential, awaiting another generation to begin some of the tasks that

remain to be done. We must look far beyond our own selfish needs if

Canada is to live up to its rich potential. As an immigrant to this

country, I have a heightened awareness of our international

obligations. I look forward to the day when our unknown agricultural

capacity is fully tested and turned to feeding the world's starving

peoples. Only when this country begins to achieve such goals will I

really be able to feel that Canada as a nation has begun to achieve its

goals the way it has allowed individual citizens to achieve theirs. For

this is a generous country; if it were not, it would not have opened

its doors to so many people like me to look for a better life here.

Despite

the many times our western provinces disagree with Ottawa, this remains

a generous country. We have a country so rich that generosity comes

naturally — generosity with the world, generosity with each other.

Sometimes this capacity for generosity is a little strained. Tensions

between east and west in Canada are a good example; but a fundamental

feeling of good will underpins even the disagreements the western

provinces have with Ottawa. The great potential, the great resources of

this country, should make each Canadian feel secure, and, as we all

know, from security comes tolerance and accommodation.

Thirty

years ago — it's over 30 ago now, Mr. Speaker — it would have been far

beyond my imagination to think that I would be standing here today,

speaking on behalf of over 60,000 people of the Central Fraser Valley

as their representative. I hope I speak not only on their behalf, but

on behalf of the several million people who chose to be Canadians as I

did. I certainly hope the press will give that the kind of

[ Page 7014 ]

coverage which the Leader of the Opposition got with respect to his remarks on this particular matter.

Just

to go on record with respect to the position of the members of the

opposition as that position applies to the division of Canada, I have

in my file here a document signed by the Leader of the Opposition and

by, I believe, at least four other members still sitting in this House,

a document that puts very clearly their position as far as Canada is

concerned. I think you'll agree with me that their position is

socialism for Canada at any cost. It says in this document, which they

have endorsed: "...there is no denying the existence of two nations

within Canada, each with its own language, culture and aspirations.

This reality must be incorporated into the strategy of the New

Democratic Party." This is not hearsay; this is fact; this is from The Waffle Manifesto .

It's with them and will always be with them. They're on record as being

prepared to do anything, even to separate this great land of ours, in

the name of socialism. I hope this will be heard outside and read,

because I think it's only fair that the people out there know what the

true facts are.

I want to touch a little on a few comments

from other members, since there has been some criticism by the member

for Esquimalt (Mr. Mitchell) with respect to speeches from this side of

the House. I'm not dreaming up these things; I'm taking it right out of

Hansard . The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said: "They promised

some sort of restraint program. Call it what you like — what it's going

to do is swell the ranks of the unemployed." This member has obviously

not read and does not understand the restraint program. It is not going

to create unemployment; it's going to protect the people. It's going to

make sure that those who are protected in the public sector will get a

fair increase. We're not cutting salaries; we're not creating

unemployment; we're saying we must share and share alike. But I wonder

if that member is prepared to tell the people in her community, those

who are laid off, that she is opposed to this restraint program and

that she believes that we should not control those who would demand

more and more out of the public purse.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said: "I am not offering

advice one way or the other, but...I will examine the 1982-83 budget proposals.

This examination will focus in the main on the need for job creation — a need

tragically and callously ignored in this budget." He says it's a budget

of "dishonesty and despair." While he says that, I must make some

allowance here, because I'm sure he was correct when he said he worked most

of the night, so he most likely missed a lot in it. The budget states it quite

clearly:

"The budget I am tabling here today injects $358 million

more into the economy than we are withdrawing in revenue. Directly and indirectly

this stimulus alone will create some 9,000 jobs in British Columbia. It is

an economic stimulus to assist British Columbians during this period of short-term

weakness. Projects now underway, or beginning this year, represent a total capital

spending program of $3.6 billion. Of this total $1.2 billion will actually be

spent during the 1982-83 fiscal year, providing close to 40,000 jobs."

Mr. Speaker, when he made his comment, obviously he totally forgot about the

great projects that are going on in this province, such as northeast coal, B.C.

Place, ALRT, and so on.

then said: "I'm sure that big business, which is waiting for some kind

of leadership from this government, will have despair after seeing the

budget speech of yesterday." Listen to what big business did say. I

quote from the report put out by the Employers Council of British

Columbia.

"In this budget, the council

president noted, the government has chosen to create jobs by supporting

economic growth rather than government work programs. This will prove

to have more lasting effects on B.C. prosperity than grants or

subsidies, and is one of the positive attitudes reflected in the budget.

"He

went on to say: 'It was encouraging that Mr. Curtis has again produced

a balanced budget. This is something that all of us agree is desirable

but quite a few of us believed would be extremely difficult at the

present time. Curtis has done this by attaining the support of his

colleagues for a major program of government restraint in almost all

their programs. This deserves support from all quarters, since it was

the basis on which increased sales and personal income taxes as well as

corporation tax increases were avoided....'

"In

summary, this budget takes an optimistic view of British Columbia over

the next year; it reflects a vigorous restraint program by the

government and it introduces several significant job-creation programs

and other changes which should be helpful to our province.

"The

most encouraging aspect to every British Columbian must be the Finance

minister's statement that we are reaching the point beyond which

heavier taxation would undermine our economic future. The government is

prepared to say it is large enough; it believes increased public

services can be provided only if government becomes more efficient or

if savings are made elsewhere."

That's what the big-business sector said, in spite of the comments of the finance critic from the opposition.

Then we have the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who says:

"Once again, it's the old Social Credit flimflam: overestimate the

revenues...." I want you all to listen to this carefully, because you could miss

the point. "Overestimate the revenues and underestimate the expenditures."

That's what was said this year. What did he say last year? Last year he

said: "What it reflects is an overestimation of expenditures" — it's

reversed; he's flexible — "and an underestimation of the revenues."

I didn't have time to go back into the year previous to that, but it would

seem to me that that member is so darned lazy or something that all he does is

take his speech from the previous year and reverse it. So next year we can be

ready for the attack. Next year the attack is going to be an overestimation

of expenditures and an underestimation of revenues; we can be ready for that.

You won't have to write that speech, Mr. Member. In fact, you won't

even have to make it, because we already know what you're going to say next

year. Your supporters out there must be very disappointed in you if they're

keeping track of some of the things you're saying in this House. The first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), when talking about the school tax, said

that we cooked the books. I wasn't around at the time, but if memory serves

me correctly and if the information I received was correct, I think it would

be fair to say that his books, when he was minister, were so

[ Page

7015 ]

well cooked that they were overdone, and he packed them up and disappeared

into the night with them, being so ashamed of them. He said that he believes

in democracy in education, but this does not include private education, private

schools, only public, except under special circumstances. Should an election

be under way, that approach to democracy in education changes because he then

involves all of them, he includes all of them: "We'll give you all

democratic rights within education." Of course, we know about the famous

letter in which he told the private school people: "If you vote for us,

we will continue to support the private education system." Then the member

has the audacity to stand up and say that we're all on a personal attack.

could go on, There was the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), but

I'm not going to go through that because I hear so much of that stuff.

Many

of my constituents were looking forward to viewing our Minister of

Finance deliver his speech on television as this has been, I believe, a

tradition of this House for about ten years. Since then, I have heard

from many people who were very disappointed people because they were

denied that privilege by the opposition party, a move that was

spearheaded by the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). It was a disgusting demonstration of his

true interest in democracy and his interest in so many people out there

who do not have the opportunity or the privilege to come and witness

such an event, particularly the budget that was delivered this year.

That one of their members would have the audacity to come into this

House the following day with a private member's bill asking that

television be used in the chamber is, I'd say, a case of blatant

hypocrisy, or else they're simply a totally disorganized group, where

the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. It is obvious

to this side of the House that they are not only a badly split party

but a totally disorganized party as well. They don't know what they

stand for. It's obvious to me that their real concern is not for the

people of this province; rather they are more concerned with their

desire for another chance to plunge this province into a state of

socialism. Before they consider themselves a credible party, they had

better get their act together.

On behalf of my constituents,

it's indeed a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to extend

congratulations and a great deal of credit to our Minister of Finance

on his most exciting and most imaginative budget — a budget such as I

don't believe has ever been presented in this House before. Nowhere in

Canada have we seen such skill in developing a budget that benefits all

British Columbians at a time when our economy is under attack. We don't

have to go too far to compare this budget with others. We are being hit

by a depressed housing market in the United States and Canada, severely

cutting into our income from the forest industry.

We're

being hit by a brutal monetary policy put in place by the federal

government and shockingly high interest rates that not only make it

very difficult to purchase a home but are causing many to, lose their

homes and resulting in bankruptcies in the business sector. We are also

suffering from the costs of staggering debts piled up by that same

federal government, debts resulting from their uncontrolled spending in

many areas that have little if anything to do with making Canada a

stronger country or providing for real people needs.

The budget just presented by our Minister of Finance proves that services to

the people can be improved, revenue bearing projects can be invested in and exciting

new job creation programs can be put in place without adding additional tax

burdens on our people. This budget proves that there are more efficient ways

to administer the public purse. Much to my delight is the fact that a major

portion of the funding will come from being more efficient in the administration

of the taxpayers' dollars. The budget also shows how this government wishes

to be fair in its efforts to become more efficient: the 12 percent increase

in spending in municipalities, schools, hospitals, etc.; a 6.1 percent increase

on our own budget; wages in the public sector are set at 10 percent and could

rise to 14 percent; and we in this House are prepared to accept 8 percent. While

these restraints are in place, those high people priorities will be allowed

to exceed the 12 percent ceiling.

are in a time when the skills of the business people and those of us in

government are being tested. It is a time to identify waste in

spending, and a time to have the courage to eliminate that waste so

that those dollars are made available for essential programs. This

budget gives strong leadership in our desire for control over the

spending of public funds. It's a budget that clearly shows that this

government is quite prepared to lead the way towards greater fiscal

responsibility.

The budget sets in motion the best

job-creating plans in North America. I would like for a moment to

compare this with the plan thrown together at the last minute by the

Leader of the Opposition, which would have increased our provincial

expenditures by approximately $2.4 billion — but we know different — or

would have meant a budget increase for this fiscal year of over 30

percent. But the tax load that would be put on the backs of those

willing to work in this province would be so horrendous that I believe

we would again see an exodus from British Columbia should those people

ever have the opportunity to carry out such a costly plan — a plan that

no doubt would put this province in the same mess that we find our

federal government in, where almost 25 percent of the federal income is

siphoned off to pay debts resulting from this sort of reckless spending.

I would like to quote part of an

article from the Province

which appeared quite recently. In talking about the Leader of the

Opposition, should he ever become Premier of this province again, it

says: "His three-year record was dismal. He increased government

spending by a staggering $500 to $1,300 for every man, woman and child

in British Columbia and promised to keep spending. He blew it when

times were good. Could he do any better today in a recession?" Never

truer words were printed.

However, we should not be fooled

by their calculations. We recently had the programs that they suggested

costed out on a realistic basis, and they would total not $2.4 billion,

but rather closer to $6 billion. The taxpayers of this province cannot

afford that type of Johnny-come-lately scatterbrained planning today,

any more than they could afford it in 1975.

This budget

gives strong leadership in our desire for control over the spending of

public funds. It's a budget that puts squarely in front of the public

that this government is quite prepared to give leadership towards

greater fiscal responsibility. It sets in motion the best job-creation

programs. It provides close to 50,000 new jobs. It provides $75 million

towards school tax relief for residential property-owners, and close to

$133 million for job-creation measures throughout the province. It

provides close to $78 million to alleviate the necessity for additional

fee increases in health-care services.

Mr. Speaker, much to my pleasure, it increases the number of farm-related items exempt from sales tax, and I thank

[ Page 7016 ]

you for that, Mr. Minister. I felt right along that that would be looked at very fairly, and it was.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're still worried about the turkey saddles.

MR. RITCHIE: We won't worry about the turkey saddles. I think they've all been sold off now.

But

in any case, I was very pleased with that, particularly because of the

comment by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who, when we were

discussing this issue in this House, advised you not to do so — not to

allow that. He said: "Don't do it. Where do you stop? The more you

give, the more they'll want." He said: "Give them subsidies, or some

other form of socialistic support." Mr. Minister, I thank you for that,

and I'm sure I speak for many farmers out in my community and

throughout the province.

I should also thank the Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) for his support. I wouldn't want

to leave him out, because he worked very hard with me in order to have

those changes made.

Mr. Speaker, the budget removes the

provincial fuel tax on propane and compressed natural gas for motor

vehicles, and it allows for a $200 grant to individuals towards the

cost of converting motor vehicles from gasoline.

tremendous interest to me will be the introduction of legislation to

allow the province to issue housing and employment development bonds,

giving British Columbians an opportunity to invest in their province

with a tax incentive. Here is an opportunity for the federal government

to show how sincere they are in helping us to make mortgage money

available to those wishing their own homes.

There are two

highlights in this budget of which I'm extremely proud and must make

more mention of, because I believe that they are not only imaginative

highlights but also courageous initiatives by this government that will

be of tremendous benefit to every citizen of British Columbia in years

to come.

The budget gives us a very distinct indication that

this government is now determined to reduce government spending and

become much more efficient, so that we may leave more dollars in the

hands of the people. That is one highlight, Mr. Speaker, which I'm

extremely proud of and excited about, because my people have been

telling me that we can't continue the way we're doing, that we must

reduce the size of government, reduce government spending and get a

handle on government taxation. This is only a start and I will be

pressing for more initiatives in this direction and pushing to see our

government privatize where we can, so that we can have fewer effects on

the people and leave more dollars out there in the private sector. In

the long run, this will eventually come back to help the people at

large.

The plan to issue housing and employment development

bonds is a tremendous forward step and, in my opinion, a method of

providing funding that not only gives those who have money to invest an

opportunity to make a sound investment with some tax incentives, but

also gives them an opportunity to express their pride and confidence in

our province.

I hope that both these areas that I have

highlighted are only the beginning of more exciting things to come. I

believe that since our provincial government does not have any say in

the monetary policies of this country, we must develop a vehicle which

will redirect a lot of that personal investment and capital that is now

going into the major banks and trust companies of this country into

provincial investments from which all British Columbians and Canadians

will benefit.

I will be encouraging our government to

consider the establishment of three funds to be administered

separately. I am particularly interested in seeing some long-term

financing made available not only for housing but also for business

development and agricultural development.

From experience, I

can tell you that one of the big problems that we have out there today

in purchasing a home is the uncertainty of knowing just what your

payments are going to be two, three or four years down the road. I

believe that if we could put a price on the cost to government of

family break-ups, etc., brought on and aggravated by those young

couples who are unable to support such payments, we would be

astonished. I say that we must somehow develop a vehicle whereby we can

return to that stable situation where a young couple, when they venture

into purchasing their own home, which we encourage them to do, will

realize that the first three, four or five years are going to be tough.

Once they get through that, things will start to level off for them and

the financial pressures will come off so that the remaining years in

that home will be easier for raising their family and keeping that

family unit together.

When it comes to agricultural

development — farming and business — we all know that grants don't do

very much for us. We don't want handouts. What any good, healthy

business wants is long-term financing. That's what gives it stability.

I just want to say that I will be pushing our government to continue on

this path and become even more ambitious in attracting that money that

is now going to those major banks into funds that we will administer

here in the province for the benefit of British Columbians. I know that

after our government has had sufficient experience and has demonstrated

that this vehicle will produce the desired results, this province can

lead North America in the development of our overall economy.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said last

November: "So what have they done since they've been in power since

1975? There's been no money into research for new technology and no

exploration to find new industry to add wealth." Well, again I hope his

people up there have been following, but let's look at the record of

this government. Let's take research and development: $91.3 million

spent on scientific activities in 1980-81, and I believe the amount is

somewhat similar this year. Of that there was $19.1 million in

industrial development, $6.6 million on food and related areas, $17.3

million on social development and related areas, $14.4 million

allocated to Discovery Foundation, $3 million for health-related

research, $1.3 million on a four-year coal liquefaction project and

$1.3 million in a fisheries and technology program.

Then he said there was nothing done

to create work. Well, here it is. Job creation: northeast coal,

approximately 5,800 jobs plus, plus, plus; Expo 86: projected over four

years, 4,000 jobs; trade and convention centre, 1,000 jobs; ALRT, 1,700

jobs; Lonsdale Quay,400 jobs; New Westminster development, 1,400 jobs;

CP jet engine overhaul plant,400 jobs; and B.C. Place, 2,000 jobs. It's

exciting, Mr. Speaker. I haven't got the total here, but it's estimated

to be around 50,000 jobs. But when you stop to think of the new port

facilities, if you stop to think of all of the new highways, the new

town, the new hydro and all of the spinoff benefits, there is no end to

the jobs that this will create. They are so blind, so negative and so

gloomy that they say we've done nothing to create work.

[ Page 7017 ]

Mr.

Speaker, since I represent a strong agricultural constituency, I fully

anticipate some criticism from the opposition critic for Agriculture to

be levelled at our Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

with respect to the amount of money that is allocated to that ministry.

I have said this before and I'll continue to say it, Mr. Speaker, that

the amount of money allocated to a ministry is no judge of the quality

of the service that that ministry can provide. I don't believe that we

should allow ourselves to fall into the old trap that the more money

you spend, the better job you do, because somebody has to pay the

bills. What we must do, Mr. Speaker, is make sure that there is no

waste and no frills. We must make sure that we are being efficient and

working with less and doing more.

In closing I extend on

behalf of my constituents congratulations and a great deal of

appreciation to our Premier for the courage that he has displayed in

leading this province — and indeed Canada — into our program of

government restraint. I would like to go on record saying for the

Premier's sake that both my councils in my constituency — hospital or

school board — are all supportive of this initiative. Oh yes, we've got

a few out there who listen to the doom-and-gloomers and cry the blues,

but I don't pay any attention to them. They're just a little handful,

I spoke just recently to the teachers association, and they had, out of approximately 600 members....

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE:

Just in closing, I would like to say that I would also like to deliver

that same message to our Minister of Finance for a fine budget, which I

am very proud of and will support all the way through. But I oppose

this NDP motion of non-confidence.

MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the member who just took his seat. He

struggled mightily to rationalize the Social Credit system of

bookkeeping. Their system of manipulating figures to try to produce an

image from the budget which is totally at variance with the economic

reality of the province at the moment. That member is getting quite

good, with his brogue, at attempting to persuade people. He is trying

to justify a totally irrational argument, and I enjoyed listening to

him go through his speech, frequently contradicting himself.

get a kick out of the Social Credit government. They want to use the

federal government as a whipping-boy for all of the economic ills of

the province — condemn them for overspending and budgetary deficits —

and yet they trot down to Ottawa on every occasion with their hands

out, trying to increase their revenue from the federal government. When

they don't receive it, then they start flirting with the western

separatists. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't ask the

federal government to pursue a monetary policy which dries up the money

supply and then condemn the effect on the province of British Columbia.

It's totally irrational. These are the people who were advocating a

monetary policy which did reduce the federal money supply with the

consequence that interest rates went up. Of course, the natural

consequence of that is that unemployment goes up along with it, because

there is a slowdown in home-building and construction and all other

business activities. To listen to someone try to wrestle with that

equation and justify the province's position is really interesting —

and a bit pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition recognizes

that we do indeed have difficult economic times at the moment, and

we're not suggesting it's all the provincial government's fault, by any

means. The market for our forest products, which is our number one

industry, is certainly very soft. That's the primary reason for our

economic troubles, for the high unemployment rate, for the plant

closures and so on. Our position, and what we're trying persuade the

government of, is that their priorities are not very intelligent in

terms of dealing with the market slump and the chaotic state of the

economy at the moment. We can debate the megaprojects, but the

government is committed to them. Unfortunately they are not prepared at

this time to share with the House or to share with the public the

details of those megaprojects — at least many of them, such as

northeast coal. We don't know what the economics of it are because the

minister steadfastly refuses to take the public, who are putting up

most of the money, into his confidence, and that's unfortunate. I

suppose it's a fait accompli under whatever circumstances the minister

is able to put it together. But we are suggesting that there are some

things the government could do during this economic slump that would

make a great deal more sense than funnelling large amounts of public

money into megaprojects in one location.

We would argue that

the forest industry provides an opportunity for developing jobs on a

regional and provincial basis and dispersing those jobs throughout the

province so that there's some regional equality in employment

opportunity. The forest industry uniquely lends itself to job creation

throughout the length and breadth of the province, rather than a major

public investment in one isolated megaproject — a megaproject which is

not an ongoing resource comparable to the forest industry, at least. We

would argue that at this particular time we should be directing

additional investment into the forest industry, not just maintaining

what the Legislature had previously committed, so that our timber

supply will be increased and when the market does rebound, we'll have

an opportunity to increase our production, increase our harvest,

generate more employment and generally be in a stronger market

condition vis-à-vis our competitors in the forest industry.

think most people would agree that that makes a lot of sense. The

member who took his seat chose to argue against and condemn in a highly

partisan way the package we had put together as a party; that's okay,

but I think he'd have great difficulty persuading the thousands of

forest workers who are now unemployed. I think he'd have difficulty

persuading any of the companies involved in the industry that the

program we have suggested, which would put about 5,000 people to work

now in the forest industry for an additional investment of about $63

million — not a billion dollars directed to trade and convention

centres, football stadiums and so on, but $63 million ploughed back

into our number one resource, putting 5,000 people to work planting

more seedlings, recovering some of the forest land that is now not in

production of merchantable fibre, and certainly in an accelerated

thinning program so that the growth of our trees can be accelerated....

There is no question that these things are needed. The industry will

tell you that. The professional foresters' association, provincially

and nationally, is in fact telling us that unless we increase our

investment in intensive forest management, we are facing not only an

inability to keep pace with our current harvest needs, but a massive

falldown in supply, which will result in further depression of

employment opportunity and industrial activity.

[ Page 7018 ]

We're

arguing this. We're saying to the government: look, you have your

priorities wrong. That's what we're arguing about — that you have your

priorities wrong. It makes sense from every point of view to use the

forest industry now, during this lull in the market, as the

underpinning of an economic recovery program. It's not going to solve

the market problem — that's going to have to rebound in due course —

but surely it makes sense to engage in these programs of site

preparation, thinning, increasing nursery capacity and planting more

trees. Surely it makes sense to do that now, because it means that we

can increase our harvest in the future and that we could put to work

over the course of the summer about 5,000 British Columbians who are

sitting home in idleness now and receiving support payments either

through unemployment insurance or social assistance.

In the

forest industry, as in other industries, British Columbians are proud

of their contribution to our economy. They would much rather be

productively engaged in earning a livelihood through a physical

investment in improving the resource for the future. It doesn't make

any sense to let them sit home in idleness when we have the potential,

capital and, certainly, the resource need to employ them usefully in

improving our resource supply for the future.

What happens

if we fail to do this? We have 15,000 or 20,000 forest-related workers

out of jobs. Over the course of this summer many of them are going to

exhaust their unemployment insurance stamps, so they will be a direct

responsibility to the government through social assistance — a pretty

traumatic kind of reliance for people who are accustomed to being

productively involved in contributing to the provincial economy. Over

the course of the summer, unless they gain some employment, their

unemployment insurance benefits will dissipate, and they're facing yet

another winter where all projections from the analysts and the

economists in the forest industry are that there will not be a

sufficient recovery of the U.S. house-building market to put our people

and our plants back to work.

So we're trying to argue

persuasively and sincerely to the government that despite their

political priorities, they should have a look at the needs of the

province, the needs of the unemployed, and the needs of our number one

industry now. We are arguing on behalf of our constituents and on

behalf of the industry generally. We are tremendously concerned that,

rather than take the direction we are suggesting, the government is

indeed doing just the reverse. We have seen the elimination of the

five-year Forest and Range Resource Fund in order to balance the budget

this year. That means that those funds committed to intensive forest

management by the Legislature have been wiped out by the Minister of

Finance to make revenue available to balance the budget. Certainly,

economically, I think that is a foolish and a retrogressive move. There

is something else wrong with it too.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

There is a startling trend by this government, which I certainly oppose, to

become a government by cabinet order-in-council. The Forest and Range Resource

Fund was set up by the Legislature, debated in the Legislature and approved

by the Legislature, but we find that the executive council arbitrarily eliminated

that fund without any debate or approval from the Legislature. We are seeing

that happen with alarming frequency. A continuation in that direction renders

the parliament of this province irrelevant. It is anti-democratic and it's

not consistent with our obligation as legislators to represent our public's

point of view on important questions of policy such as this.

That

is an aside, but the more important thing is that the government is

taking the convenient route of putting a higher priority on balancing

the budget from a bookkeeping point of view than on maintaining a

healthy forest industry. They are not even maintaining the commitment

that was made in 1980 to intensive silvicultural treatment. Our program

is clear. We have said that funding should remain. That has to be a

longterm commitment. Proper treatment and proper programs of

reforestation cannot be undertaken effectively for one year. It has to

be an ongoing annual commitment, and we are saying that that commitment

should have indeed been retained as it was outlined in the five-year

plan. Additionally, at this particular time, we are advocating the

direction of an additional $63 million into intensive management of our

forest resource. Let the facts be clear. This is our approach, and we

think it makes sense from an economic and social point of view and from

every practical aspect from which one wants to view it.

should debate those things, by all means. If the government doesn't

wish to accept that direction, fair enough. But it troubles me a bit

when I hear speaker after speaker get up and distort the issue and say:

"Well, you people over there are simply against megaprojects and all of

the particular things the government is doing." Some of them are good.

Some of them do create employment but it is highly centralized. It is

not an investment in the future, by any stretch of the imagination, to

the same extent that a major investment in our forest industry would be

because it would increase our resource supply for the future and it

would be regionally impacted throughout the whole province — which is

very important at this particular time.

The Premier's own

riding has one of the highest unemployment rates in the province of

British Columbia. The Okanagan valley, the town of Kelowna is in a

state of depression. We have major sawmills closing down. We have

thousands of people unable to afford proper shelter. We have a report

from the Professional Foresters Association dealing with the Okanagan

timber supply area which anticipates a falldown in timber supply of

pretty near a million cubic metres of fibre. They tell us that the

silvicultural program in the Okanagan is not adequate at the moment.

They tell us that the total harvesting in the Okanagan timber supply

area should be 3.8 million cubic metres per year. That is the necessary

level of harvest to maintain the plants operating now and to secure the

jobs. The current harvest allowed in the Okanagan timber supply area is

only 2.7 million cubic metres. This means lost jobs. It means reduced

plant production. It means a negative impact on the economy.

The

professional foresters in that area have made a presentation to the

minister and to the government. They've made a presentation to the

chambers of commerce and all of the city councils throughout the length

and breadth of the Okanagan and Shuswap area. They are telling us that

if we would now invest the necessary capital in the things I've been

talking about, we could generate over 22,000 man-days of employment in

that area, and we could increase the timber supply to an amount

necessary to maintain the demands of the sawmills and the pulp mills

operating in that area.

The government can't turn its back

on this, reality and ignore it and hope that it will go away. In my

view, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the more important policy matters — if

[ Page 7019 ]

not

the most important — in the province right now: that is, the question

of whether or not our timber, our number one resource, is going to

continue to be a reliable source of revenue to the province for the

future in a sustained-yield way, the major source of revenue that would

continue to fund our social programs — health, education, human

resources — and, through the provision of that resource revenue, to

allow whatever government is in power to finance and fund the program,

rather than dumping the onerous burden of taxation on the backs of the

people, as is happening now.

We have seen this government

introduce increases in every possible service over the past year —

again, without respect to debate in the Legislature. Arbitrarily, by

cabinet dictum, they have increased the water fees to B.C. Hydro, which

in turn had no alternative but to pass those costs on to the consumer.

We've seen massive increases in health premiums and everything from

hunting and marriage licences to ferry rates and ICBC premiums. It

shows you what happens when our resource revenue starts to dry up. The

government is then forced to start gouging the people to support the

social programs.

For the government to be so blind that they

can't recognize the need now for setting an investment priority in that

resource to increase the supply for the future, to guarantee that

revenue will continue to come in from the forestry industry, is a kind

of blindness that is totally irresponsible, and in my view sells out

the interests of the people of the province of British Columbia.

Now

that's the number one thing. It's our position that we should be

investing in the forest industry rather than in big megaprojects that

politicians on the government side are probably going to have named

after them. Yes, they generate some employment, but it certainly isn't

the answer to our long-term economic needs.

What else has

the government done? They've eliminated the community recreational

facilities fund. Again, they pulled in that money to help them balance

their budget. That program was available to the municipalities, towns,

cities and villages throughout the province of British Columbia. As

such, it provided some equitable opportunity for communities to develop

programs for cultural and athletic facilities in their communities. It

generated employment, Mr. Speaker; maybe not a thousand jobs on one

project, but through the building of facilities in small communities it

provided jobs in a regional way. In my view, this makes a lot more

sense than directing a billion dollars of public expenditure into one

location and one project.

They abolished that fund. By so

doing, the government is contributing to regional disparity. I've made

this argument for years in the Legislature, and as a rural MLA, I'm

angered that the government continually starves the rural areas of

British Columbia by paying most attention and by directing most of the

investment to the lower mainland and Vancouver area. I don't think we

should be parochial, but when we continually see basic services eroded

and cut back in the Kootenays and the north-central part of the

province....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What about northeast coal?

MR. KING:

Northeast coal. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, if the minister

had been listening, if his colleague the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) would agree to table the

agreements, contracts and prices then we could have intelligent debate

on that project, but so long as the government chooses to hide the

details of contracts from the people and Legislature, that's on their

head. We are not going to sign a blank cheque for this government. We

don't trust them enough.

The point is that the rural

members, whether they're on the government side or the opposition side,

should be arguing for the retention of the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund. It was one device....

MR. KEMPF: Which taxpayer are you going to take the money from?

MR. KING:

Well, the government didn't seem to have too much trouble finding the

billion dollars necessary for the huge development in downtown

Vancouver, the football stadium, Transpo 86 — all of those things. What

we're arguing is that the government has its priorities askew, and some

of them have their minds in the same position. That's the problem.

The

Community Recreation Facilities Fund was one device that offered some

equality to all the regions of the province of British Columbia, and

the government has wiped it out without debate. They destroyed that

opportunity for some regional employment opportunities.

case in point is the Shuswap Community Centre Society at Salmon Arm.

That community has a very active, well-organized and pretty

sophisticated organization for the performing and cultural arts. They

would like to have a facility that would offer them the opportunity to

perhaps put on more shows in that area to enhance tourism, which is

heavy in that area. They would like to be able to attract travelling

performers and artists, and have a facility with the acoustics and

public seating necessary to make it a first-class improvement and a

real attraction for the local people and tourists. They were turned

down — no money for Shuswap's community centre for Salmon Arm. They

feel resentful when they see massive amounts of money being channelled

into one or two projects. They are telling me and this government that

your priorities are wrong, and I agree.

It's interesting

that the president of the society up there applied to the provincial

government and to the federal government as well for a grant. The

federal government said: Look, we haven't got any money left. They had

set up a fund of $16.8 million for funding capital projects across

Canada, and it was all spent. When she appealed to the federal

minister, she asked why the elected officials of the community were not

consulted with respect to how the funds were directed. We found from

the minister's reply that in all cases a provincial commitment to the

proposal had to be demonstrated before our support could be considered.

you know, the government of the province of British Columbia was

consulted prior to the examination of the Vancouver Art Gallery

submission, and at that time was advised of the limited funds at our

disposal and of the likelihood that full support for the project might

curtail the amount of money available for other undertakings in the

province. Provincial government officials were aware of these

constraints, but continued to emphasize the need for federal government

support of the Vancouver Art Gallery project. Therefore, in view of

this strong recommendation, $4.5 million from the program was committed

to the gallery in Vancouver.

[ Page 7020 ]

Again,

I certainly don't believe in being too parochial, but where is the

even-handedness? Where's the equity? We see this government committed

to one or two major projects in downtown Vancouver to the exhaustion of

provincial and federal funds, when rural communities throughout the

length and breadth of the province have no opportunity for increasing

and improving their cultural and recreational opportunities. Where's

the equity?

If anyone wishes to argue that your priorities

are correct, fair enough: let it be clear, let's talk about it when the

election is called, and the people will make the final decision. But I

say it's totally unfair. It doesn't make a lot of economic sense. It

centralizes all of the opportunity in one area, without respect to the

positive economic impact that could flow if some regional activity took

place throughout the province. That was the original concept of the

fund.

What about the student summer employment program? We

find that the government has eliminated that. The community

recreational facilities fund and the student summer employment fund

were set up by the former NDP government in 1973. To their credit, the

Social Credit government has continued both of them; they were

recognized as good programs. They were well utilized throughout the

province. They helped industry; they helped the educational system;

they helped students of the province refinance their education. Now

they're eliminated. Again, it is lost opportunity for the regional

young people throughout this province, who perhaps had a chance to look

forward to some employment opportunity over the summer months. Now

there is a lack of funding. This government is obsessed with

megaprojects and is directing all the funds into their pet political

projects, and these particular programs, which offered opportunities

evenhandedly throughout the province, are eliminated. How the member

for Omineca and the member for Fort George can stand mutely by and

allow this negative impact on their area and the people they represent

is beyond me.

You heard the member for Central Fraser Valley

(Mr. Ritchie) say it was the only budget that was ever presented in the

House. That's a bit excessive, I'd say. But he said not a word about

these important issues that affect his constituents as well.

can talk in the House until we're blue in the face, but every one of us

is going to be held to account by the people. It's not adequate to

ignore the problems and hope that they're going to go away. You will

indeed be held to account. Quite frankly, I'd be very pleased if the

government changed its mind and its priorities, at least somewhat, to

give recognition to what we're advocating in this respect. That's what

we're asking.

The government's priorities are haywire. The

House will remember that last year we moved cuts in the budget to the

tune of $81 million, from four things basically: cabinet ministers'

office furniture, their travel expenses, computer costs and building

occupancy charges. We said: "Look, we're facing a tough economic year.

Let's trim some of the fat out of the government's budget now." We

proposed cuts in unproductive areas, in the luxury of cabinet

ministers' offices. Had the government agreed with our motions, that

$81 million would have been available now to fund some of the programs

we're talking about: accelerated activity in management of the forest

industry; some funding for community projects, through the recreational

facilities fund; the creation of summer employment opportunities.

What's wrong with that?

It's a matter of public record that

just last year we moved those cuts and the government, with its

majority, voted us down. Now they come back and tell us that we're in

economic trouble and that we have to cut all these useful people

programs to balance our books, and that they're going to impose

restraint on certain people, which they demonstrated they were not

prepared to accept themselves.

We say your priorities are

wrong. The public of British Columbia is aware that your priorities are

awry and foolish. You shall be held to account whenever the Premier

musters the courage to ask the people for their decision on the matter.

Contrast

the restraint this government is talking about now and their foolish

priorities with the luxury of the cabinet tours. Just last summer the

entire cabinet and a huge entourage, including the press gallery and, I

believe, wives and executive assistants, which I don't argue with, made

a tour of the Kootenays. They started out in Cranbrook. They rented two

railway Budd cars and travelled in whistle-stop fashion, à la John

Diefenbaker, up the Columbia Valley to Golden, over to Revelstoke,

Salmon Arm and down to Vernon. I don't know how long they were in

making that trip but I think something like two and a half or three

days, and they hosted luncheons along the way with a bar — buy a little

booze for the guests. I suppose that's all right too. I estimate that

that little excursion cost in the area of $200,000. The same executive

council went to Schooner Cove a little later and held a retreat in the

luxury lodge up there. They can afford public funding for their

personal priorities and pleasure and for their political needs, but at

the same time they are cutting back those programs that I've

identified. It is beyond debate; you know it is true. It is a matter of

public record.

Again, I say that the priorities are totally

wrong. This government has spent more on junkets, ministerial travel,

luxurious office furniture, importing political lackeys from Ontario to

shore up their political image, than they have spent on megaprojects.

It is shameful, when we have 150,000 British Columbians unemployed,

when we have communities like Salmon Arm being denied any opportunity

for cultural and recreational development to see this rampant and

selfish kind of expenditure by the members of the cabinet.

How

much do all these things cost? In normal times I don't think people

resent it or object. We travelled when we were in government. We

recognize that certainly ministers have to travel; what we question is

the need for the luxurious and extremely large contingents that went

around politicking at public expense. It costs too much money in a time

of restraint; it costs too much money when programs for people are

being sacrificed. Mr. Speaker, what did it cost the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to take his

helicopter junket up to northeast coal and officially open construction

on it by setting off a blast of, I presume, dynamite. I think there

were seven helicopters rented by the minister that went into that

project for members of the media at public expense. Mr. Speaker, it's a

bit of a sore pill to swallow for people who are unemployed and seeing

their industries and businesses going down the tube — to see this kind

of lavish public spending, this kind of irresponsible junketing by

people who happen to occupy cabinet chairs at the moment.

what we're saying to the government is: "Clean up your act. Get your

priorities straight. Recognize the obligation that we all have to

provide to people first, not to ourselves." Certainly the incidents

I've outlined are beyond question; they're a matter of public record.

We say they're

[ Page 7021 ]

classic

and shabby examples of excessive behaviour by this particular

government, Mr. Speaker, and we're arguing as persuasively as we can

that the government should change those priorities and start

understanding the regional needs of people throughout the length and

breadth of this province.

There are all kinds of examples of

cutbacks and destroyed programs in my riding and many others, and I'll

be referring to them and talking about them more specifically when we

get into the ministerial estimates. In the meantime, suffice it to say

that this government that used to be a populist, grassroots party —

Social Credit — should have a look at itself and try to get back to a

day when they really took seriously some obligation to the people of

the province of British Columbia.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr.

Speaker, needless to say I rise to speak against the amendment and in

favour of the budget. I have a few comments, I guess, at the outset

with respect to the member who has just taken his place. The member, of

course, is from a rural riding like I am, one concerned largely with

the forest industry. He does recognize the problem with our North

American lumber market, and that's good to see. The member further

attacked our priorities, with his rationale being that our priorities

were somehow tied to private-sector contracts. The member then spoke of

regionalizing our priorities. I guess the only thing I could do at this

point would be to refer the hon. member to page 15 of the budget and

the Cabinet Committee on Employment Development. I will advise the

member, and I'm sure all rural members, that in a riding like mine

reforestation and silviculture are my priorities for that cabinet

funding. I would advise the member to approach that cabinet committee

with his concerns.

The member also said — and this is quite

gracious of him that some of our megaprojects are good. It's nice to

hear that type of positive support coming from that side of the House.

His speech was constructive to some degree, and it's unfortunate that

other NDP members, from time to time, don't have his ability to be

critical and yet constructive at the same time.

One

interesting point that was brought up by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke — and I guess it's a concern of all of us who

represent ridings that are involved in the forest industry — is the

question of whether timber will be a reliable resource for continued

revenue in the future. That's a very good question, hon. member. That,

my friend, is why we are diversifying. We're diversifying to projects

like northeast coal and natural-gas processing plants because we do, as

a government, recognize that you, as the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke,

and all us who are concerned with the timber industry realize that it

is time we diversified. We can't be that dependent on the United States

and offshore markets for our lumber resources.

I guess I

have to associate myself to some degree with the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke and his concern about the RRAP grants. No one likes

to see that type of funding cut back, or in this case eliminated for

the time being. Its a fair comment. However, I guess at some time or

other we have to bite the bullet.

I have one more comment

for the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on B.C. Place. There were

some budget comments made there, and I wonder if the hon. member could

identify for us the figure for that project in this 1982-83 budget.

MR. KING: Do you want me to do it now?

MR. STRACHAN: I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to speak at some other point.

MR. COCKE: Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

MR. STRACHAN: I know the answer.

Mr.

Speaker, naturally I rise to disagree with the amendment. With the

greatest respect to Your Honour's ruling in accepting the amendment, I

question whether or not the amendment is, in fact, an amendment,

because it really doesn't amend anything that is in the budget. Of

course, the wording of the motion is amended by the words moved by the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), but as we all know, Mr.

Speaker, an amendment must alter to some degree the intent of the

motion. This is an amendment of style, but I would submit it is not an

amendment of substance. However, I guess that does characterize the NDP

debate: lots of style but very little substance. It appears to me to be

a party falling apart from the middle, which my good friend from

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) might refer to as an implosion.

The

amendment in itself means nothing, Mr. Speaker. Essentially, it doesn't

amend the budget, and it does little more than take up space in Orders

of the Day.

MR. LEA: It says nothing and you're speaking against it?

MR. STRACHAN:

Yes, I'm speaking against it. It's in Orders of the Day, item 20, if

you care to read it. In speaking against whatever the amendment is

attempting to say, I wish to deal with our government's budget, the

reality of where we are today, the reality of where we are in the North

American economic community and why we are here.

A very

interesting thing has happened, Mr. Speaker, in the last 40 years in

Canada. As an aside, let me say that as a former Calgarian and a

resident of Prince George for the last 16 years I've taken a great

interest in watching population increases, having grown up and lived my

life to date in two very quickly growing cities. It's a study of

demographics. This was further reinforced by my employment at the

registrar's office at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George,

and later on when I sat as a school trustee. The study of population

and population increases became an item to me that seemed to have a lot

of bearing on decisions being made by myself as a trustee and as an

employee of the college, and was interesting to me just as a resident

in two very quickly growing western Canadian cities. I guess

"demographics" sounds a little bit cold, so let's use the word

"people." I guess it's sufficient to say that people are, in fact,

business. That's what all of us in this chamber are all about. We are

all members for an area, and we are all members for a particular group

of people, on the basis of being a member for a particular group of

people that puts us here in the first place. Because of people we draw

up budgets, we debate estimates and we pass legislation. People are our

business, our reason for being, and they are the force that causes us

as politicians to react in the way we do.

It was interesting

the other day, when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was

speaking, to hear some hon. members making some very unparliamentary

catcalls about unemployment in Prince George. The member doing the

harping of course doesn't realize that the Prince George

[ Page 7022 ]

employment

figure is essentially regional in nature and covers a far larger area

in square miles than just Prince George. The member also doesn't

realize, of course, that at this time of the year, during breakup, the

central interior has a traditionally high unemployment rate as a result

of our seasonal forest industry. Let's not lose sight of the fact that

Prince George could show very low unemployment figures if there was no

one there and if no one had ever moved there, but that is not the case.

The population of Prince George has tripled in the past 20 years and

our biggest problem now is caused by the success we've enjoyed in the

past. Our community, our industry, has participated in the North

American boom and we've enjoyed that participation.

I should point out at this time that a great many of our community leaders....

MR. KEMPF: You've never been off the rock. What do you know about it? You've never been north of Cache Creek.

MR. STRACHAN: Could I have some order, please?

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask all members to come to order. The member for Prince George South has the floor.

MR. STRACHAN:

When we speak about the tripling of the Prince George population in the

last 20 years, I might add that a great many of the leaders in our

community, the people who have established industry, the real heart of

our economic community, are people who have come from the province of

Saskatchewan. They were driven out of Saskatchewan by socialist

policies and they don't want to see those policies return. As a matter

of interest, there were more people in Saskatchewan in 1938 than there

are now. Fortunately a lot of those good, hard-working, entrepreneurial

types now reside in Prince George. I guess if the CCF did one thing,

they really helped establish the central interior of British Columbia,

and we're very, very proud to have all those ex-Saskatchewan types in

our central interior.

But on to people in our current state

of affairs. Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting factors that all

Canadians in any leadership position have to deal with and consider is

the population boom that occurred between the years 1951 and 1966.

During those years seven million Canadians were born. Of course their

ages range now from 16 to 31 years of age, and they account for

one-third of Canada's population. They are a wave that has never been

seen before and never will be seen again, but the important thing is

that they are here.

Our two current Education ministers are

aware of this wave that has gone through our public school system and

now is into our universities, and I'm sure the hon. member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly), who has just arrived, is also aware of that

population wave. That group of Canadian citizens — that one-third of

our population born between the years 1951 and 1966 — have played a

very important role in past budgets and will play an important role in

future budgets. This wave in our Canadian population has caused us to

build schools and community colleges; it has caused our moral fabric to

change; and it has caused us to change our legislation. I guess an

example of legislation before us now, and I won't offend the

anticipation rule.... It's obvious as we look at the new Motor Vehicle

Act that in fact we are bringing in these motor vehicle changes because

we now have seven million extra drivers on the road — those people who

are one-third of our population and between 16 and 31 years of age.

This

population wave must cause us to examine some hard budgeting realities.

Let's take education for example. During the years 1951 to 1966, an

average of 450,000 children were born every year. This is contrasted by

an average of 275,000 a year born up to that time from the turn of the

century and after that date, to date. So given that the youngest of

this wave are now 16 years of age and are just about through the public

school system, it's fair to point out that we will face declining

school enrolments. That, of course, is the case. Further, with the

exception of the growing northern communities, one cannot expect a

further wave or increase in school population. This same effect will

occur in universities and post-secondary education facilities within

the next eight years.

We've had a lot of concern expressed

in the building in the last couple of weeks about education cutbacks

and the quality of education. The hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) has been, I am sure, hosting a lot of these concerned

people. That's his job, and I guess we all appreciate that. Our

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and our Minister of Universities

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) have had the same concern. The BCTF are aware of this

population wave; they're aware of the fact that it's passed through our

public school system. It's now just at the tail-end of the

post-secondary education system and, of course, they're worried about

their jobs. That is why they insist on tenure and on a lower class size.

Teachers

will not be needed in the future as they were in the past, and one

cannot discount that. There are not as many children being born now.

There haven't been as many born since 1966, and teachers are in fact an

endangered species, I would submit, because there just aren't the

children around to go to school. That's one thing we'll all have to be

aware of, and I commend to the Minister of Education his hard-line

policy in attempting to curtail school board budgets. I think the

school board people that I've talked to — and I know many of them — are

all in agreement with it. We do have declining populations. We see no

sign of a student increase on the horizon, and there's no way that we

should just continue to throw money at these buildings that we've used.

Those

are the facts, Mr. Speaker The population wave is with us. It's had its

effect in the past and will have its effect in the future, but it will

not, I submit, affect education. Now, from our point of view, as

observers of this population wave and as MLAs, the first thing we have

to realize is that if we examine our ages, we realize that we are the

parents of this population. I'm sure we're all aware from a biological

point of view why we are the parents, but I would have to wonder why

there was a sudden increase in fertility during the years 1951 to 1966.

It's very simple: economic good times and a strong feeling of security

about the future.

From 1951 to 1966 economic growth was at

the rate of 3 percent per year. As parents of those children, our

incomes doubled during the time we were aged from 20 to 40. Times were

good and secure. During those years the only serious international

upset was, in fact, the Korean conflict. It was the only international

crisis of any significance, and it occurred to an awful lot of parents

during that time that this was a good time to have a big family, and

they did.

Health and science changed with that wave of

children coming on. I'm 40 years old now, and I remember young children

contracting polio when I was in primary school.

[ Page 7023 ]

Fifteen

years later polio was virtually eliminated. Expectations. We all wanted

our children to have the best in health, education and everything the

state could provide. And the state did provide, Mr. Speaker; times were

good, revenues were up, and the state came through with flying colours.

Some

governments were prudent during this health-education wave such as ours

in British Columbia, and only provided what they could afford. Others,

like our federal government, created large deficits in response to

political expectations. However, whatever the cause and whatever the

reaction, we can't lose sight of the fact that there are many costs

incurred by this population wave that will not occur again. To those of

you who are concerned about education, I would recommend that you look

this up when you get home and really have a hard look at the number of

children being born now and what happened 15 years ago.

Education

of course is paramount, but one must look at pediatric care, day care

and all the other programs associated with a population of young people

who have come and, I would submit, who have gone. In view of this

evidence new programs must be considered. I feel the Knowledge Network

is an excellent example in that it recognizes not only the

sophistication of our technical age but also the leisure time and

interest of this population wave.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably

B.C. is caught up in the North American economic downturn. It was

heartening to hear the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

speak of the forest products downturn and the fact that our largest

revenue-earner, the forest industry, is in fact declining. I'm sure all

members realize it. If you know anything about the forest industry,

hon. members, I'm sure you realize that at about 1.8 million housing

starts per year in the U.S. our B.C. economy starts to shine; the 1.8

million starts in the U.S. creates a good market for the central

interior or the British Columbia lumber market.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. STRACHAN:

I'm not wrong: 1.8 million will do it. It will get the lumber at the

right price and everything zings along quite nicely, You also know that

in fact the housing starts projected in the budget for 1982 are 1. I

million, so we are in fact going to have a shortfall. As the market for

B.C. forest products becomes stable and lumber prices increase, our

manufacturing sector will show a profit. Don't forget that profits mean

paycheques.

I appreciate, hon. members opposite, that your

amendment means you would buy up closed-down sawmills and start them

rolling. What for? That was a very interesting comment that was made by

the Leader of the Opposition. You would buy up closed-down sawmills to

create an inventory for which there is no market. If the market ever

came around, your huge inventory would in fact depress the market

further. And how would you pay for the sawmills? Out of general

revenue, I would imagine, you would pay for sawmills which would

produce a product that nobody wants.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is a spirited fighter for social

programs and I quite admire her, at times, when she takes the floor and speaks

of her concerns. I can just imagine the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds coming

to a caucus meeting and finding out that social programs have been cut to buy

sawmills which cannot sell their product except at a loss. I can just imagine

the Leader of the Opposition, if he were Premier, telling the member for Burnaby-Edmonds:

"Well, we're cutting back social programs to buy sawmills. Now we have

to sell the wood at a loss, but it is volume that keeps us going."

The

amendment suggests that we subsidize our forest industry and pulp and

paper industry. I don't think the opposition members are really

serious, you know. It is funny. We are into northeast coal and it is a

fantastic development, the biggest development of its kind in Canada.

We have the best price and we are providing thousands of jobs now and

for the future. Yet we are opposed in our wishes to develop and create

jobs by members who present a motion saying they want to create jobs.

It is irony. Are we to create jobs or are we not to create jobs?lf you

could just tell us that we would much appreciate it. In spite of the

wishes of some people who would say that we should cancel job-creation

developments, I can assure you that we will not. You can try to grind

this province to a halt, but we won't let you. Our program, our budget,

our projects are in place for the people of British Columbia and

they're going to stay in place.

It has been observed by some

members opposite — as they tippy-toe out of trying to make a statement

about northeast coal — that they simply want us to renegotiate the

deal, a private-sector deal. I have to question what sort of

renegotiation they would ask us to enter into next. Would you ask us to

open up the southeast coal deal and renegotiate it? Would you ask us to

open up the IWA contract with the forest industry? It sounds a little

too much like "Let's Make a Deal." If they were government, I'm sure

that would be their policy — this let's-make-a-deal government.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN:

Yeah, let's get to work. That's funny. "Let's Get to Work" on the

bumper stickers of Japanese cars. I see that in the parking lot for the

NDP members. Does Ed Broadbent know about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got a German car.

MR. STRACHAN: By the way, Mr. Speaker, there was an interesting comment about....

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN:

Yeah, that was ironic. The workers in Prince Rupert protest the

Japanese equipment as they drive to work in their Hondas, look at their

Seiko wrist-watches and go home and watch their Panasonic televisions.

The

other interesting comment — just peripherally, Mr. Speaker — is that

there was some criticism the other day about ALRT and the fact that we

haven't adopted the same system that Calgary and Edmonton have. This

was from the same group who say "Let's get back to work," realizing or

maybe not realizing that, in fact, the Calgary and Edmonton systems use

cars and coaches made in West Germany. I think it is hypocritical —

and, if you like, ironic — that they would suggest, "Let's get back to

work," and continue to buy Japanese cars and West German rail coaches.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: What happened to Railwest?

MR. STRACHAN: It wouldn't work. It wasn't economical.

[ Page 7024 ]

Back

to northeast coal. We can talk about B.C. construction forces working

on the project.... As a matter of fact, the ALRT cars are being built

in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: The motors are.

MR. STRACHAN: Thanks, the motors are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Front and back.

MR. STRACHAN: Front and back, whatever. We'll get to that one later. I'm trying to get into northeast coal.

The

Prince George Construction Association has provided an awful lot of big

numbers on the amount of Prince George construction forces working on

northeast coal, and they really are staggering. As a matter of fact,

it's nice to see that type of participation by our B.C. Industry. They

are big numbers. All the construction projects are in the millions.

Those of you who sit on the Crown corporations reporting committee are

well aware of what those numbers are.

Here's a smaller one.

I hope the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is listening. One

of the things that has intrigued me is that we have to look at all the

smaller contracts that are coming up in Prince George. For example, the

Canadian National Railroad will increase its workforce in Prince George

by 30 percent, from approximately 600 to 900 men, with the advent of

northeast coal. I would challenge the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to

come to Prince George and walk around with his union brothers on the

CNR line, including the hon. former member Alf Nunweiler, and say that

we're against northeast coal. It's interesting that CNR is laying off

men in all areas of Canada but not in Prince George. In Prince George

they're growing for one reason — northeast coal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they handling?

MR. STRACHAN: They're going to be hauling coal, grain, whatever.

wonder if the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke would be prepared to tell

his CPR union brothers that if the NDP were government they would

re-examine and open up all export coal contracts such as southeast

coal. To paraphrase my Prince George colleague, the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich), socialist ideals may sound great, but they don't

put food on the table. A paycheque puts food on the table; a job puts

food on the table. We're providing jobs, and I don't think you can deny

that. Those jobs are here in B.C.

I think it's fair to say

that no one likes restraint. Sure, it would be nice to keep on

spending, but we don't have the revenue. Keynesian economics have

suggested that governments should spend and borrow to stimulate the

economy. This idea has merit if you borrow for capital purposes, which

is what we're doing, but it does not have merit if in fact you only

borrow for operating purposes. Our operating revenue can go by another

name, hon. members, and that is taxes. These taxes are paid by the

citizens of our province; they are the same citizens who elect you and

me to this assembly.

Everyone from Beryl Plumtre to John

Fryer has tried to compare our restraint program to the anti-inflation

program of the mid seventies. They say that our program won't work

because the federal program didn't. The federal program of wage and

price controls didn't work because everyone was restrained except the

government itself. During the years of wage and price controls in

Canada imposed by the federal government, that same federal government

in fact increased its deficit from $2 billion to $6 billion. That's

what went wrong with their wage and price control program.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no magic of economics to the restraint program. We,

as government, are simply saying to the taxpayer that our government

and the municipal and school governments — all taxing authorities — are

simply going to take our hand out of your pocket. That's it, pure and

simple — no magic, just a move to reduce taxes.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada