1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3473 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

David Thompson University Centre. Mr. Nicolson –– 3473

Mr. Rose

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Mr. Passarell –– 3474

Mr. Blencoe

Transfer of funds to BCR. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 3475

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Nicolson –– 3475

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3479

Ms. Sanford –– 3481

Mrs. Johnston –– 3486

Mr. Skelly –– 3488

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3492

Mr. Howard –– 3494

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to

please welcome a visiting delegation from the province of Alberta,

members of the Select Standing Committee on Senate Reform who are in

our capital to engage in discussions and an exchange of ideas and

opinions on senate reform. In the galleries today are members of the

Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Dennis Anderson, Carl Paproski, David

Carter and Ray Speaker; and two of the staff, Susan Elliot and Peggy

Davidson.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on February 81 introduced a

15-person delegation that came down to meet with the minister regarding

David Thompson University Centre. Today I'd like to draw to your

attention that in the precincts are about 150 people visiting and

asking for some reconsideration of the decision to close David Thompson

University Centre.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to extend a

warm welcome to a group from the central Fraser Valley, students of the

Mennonite Educational Institute, who are accompanied by their teacher

Mr. Loewen. Would the House please welcome these students and their

teacher.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members to join me

in welcoming Mr. Tony Goode, from Elkford, British Columbia, to the

Legislature today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, we have visiting us today Mr.

Dudley Thompson, general manager of Sears in Victoria. With him are two

gentlemen from my hometown of Toronto: Mr. Robert Knox, vice-president

of public affairs for Sears, Toronto, and Mr. J.J. Michael Eagan.

corporate secretary and vice-president of that firm. I'd ask the House

to bid these three gentlemen welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, also visiting with us today from

San Francisco is a long-time friend of mine, Mr. Michael Creasy. I

would ask the House to make him welcome, along with his friend Mr. Jeff

Archer.

Oral Questions

DAVID THOMPSON UNIVERSITY CENTRE

MR. NICOLSON: A question to the Minister of Education.

Hundreds of my constituents and students representing a cross-section

of occupations and political stripes have travelled overnight to

Victoria to present their arguments to the government on the closure of

the David Thompson University Centre. Has the minister reconsidered the

savage blow to the economy and to the people of Nelson?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I did meet with a

delegation from the Nelson area some time ago. On at least three occasions during

that particular meeting they were advised that the decision is final. They repeatedly

requested that the decision be reviewed. The decision was, and the decision

that was made remains.

MR. NICOLSON: Will the minister advise what studies are in

his possession concerning the economic impact of closing DTUC, and has

he decided to make these studies public?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The decision which government made was a

difficult one, and I can assure the member that of anything with which

I have been involved in five years at the provincial level, I believe

this to be the hardest decision. I think it is clear that the matter of

the budget and the amount of available funding had to be addressed.

When you examine the amount of money which is spent per capita in the

Kootenays and Selkirk region of British Columbia, you will find that it

is in excess of double, not including the cost of David Thompson

University Centre. In other words, in excess of double the provincial

average per person is placed in that particular area. I think the

member is well aware, when you look at the number of full-time students

at the centre, that the overall costs, even when we add part-time

students based on a full-time equivalent or converted to that, is worth

in excess of $10,000, when you take the cost of operating, not

including debt service, which should not be included — that I agree

with. It is a difficult decision, and it has been made.

[2:15]

MR. NICOLSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The community

took the minister at his word when he suggested that they should come

back quickly with a proposal, which he was willing to take to cabinet.

They prepared such a document and had it prepared on that eighth day,

when the minister announced that it was absolutely and totally dead.

This proposal shows ways in which those objections can be met. Is the

minister willing to read and consider this proposal, which would bring

it within the funding formula constraints of the provincial

government's program?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, upon the request made by some

people at that meeting, and even prior to that, I invited proposals for

the use of the plant and facilities. As I recall, I have not received

any proposal. That information has been made very clear to those

involved.

When you look at the total number of students attending the centre

on a full-time basis — something like 256, which includes University of

Victoria extension programs — it is pretty hard to justify the

maintenance of that facility as it is now. The decision is there, and I

regret it very much. But it is something that just had to be addressed.

Selkirk College is something like 25 miles or so away. It's the same

throughout the province of British Columbia. There are regional

colleges located in every part of the province. It seems to me that it

is patently unfair to all the other community colleges, wherever they

are located, that that amount should be directed where in fact there

are something like 256 full-time students, including the University of

Victoria extension program — or something like 370 full-time

equivalents. It was a tough decision. It is something that had to be

addressed, and it has been.

MR. ROSE: In the case of the school board funds, where there was an extra $12 million as a result of the three non-

[ Page 3474 ]

teaching days, the minister, after suggesting the

boards bring forward their ideas on how to use that money, later

revealed I that he knew in advance that their ideas would not be

accepted. So he rejected them before they even submitted them. In the

case of DTUC, after agreeing to a committee request for ten days to

come up with better funding or cost-saving ideas, the minister closed

DTUC after eight days and hasn't even heard the committee's

representations.

Can we expect similar behaviour from this same minister in future,

or can we look forward to less deviousness and greater candidness?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member has been

a parliamentarian long enough to know that the word "devious" in

reference to another member must be withdrawn, and I would ask him to

so do.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to withdraw "less deviousness, " but I would like "greater candidness" to remain.

MR. SPEAKER: The latter is parliamentary, the former is not. The Chair appreciates the withdrawal.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first

item involving the funding and the savings arising from the three-day

withdrawal of services pretty well provincewide, I made it clear....

And it's a matter of record; it's incorporated within a letter which

was sent to every chairman, superintendent and secretary-treasurer in

every school district in British Columbia. In that press release and

letter I said: "I am interested in your proposals, but you can rest

assured that this is not a commitment." That was made clear.

MR. ROSE: You don't make commitments.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member is asking me to be candid and

upfront. I was candid and upfront, and it is a t matter of record

within that letter and press release.

On the second part of the question: the people with whom I met....

After that particular meeting, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) repeated in this House that t there wasn't very much

encouragement. Well, it seems to me I that there must have been some

degree of candour at that meeting to have a member make that comment.

When I returned with the answer that there was to be no reversal, I

communicated it — by way of telex, followed by a letter, all of it

preceded by a telephone call — to His Worship Mayor Maglio of Nelson,

because I cannot be more open and more e upfront than that.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MR. PASSARELL: My question is to the Minister of Human

Resources, who is responsible for B.C. Transit and Pacific Coach Lines.

The Minister of Human Resources issued a statement which states that

the assets of Pacific Coach Lines have been sold to three bidders.

Will the minister identify which assets have been sold to each of

the three bidders and the purchase price for each of the assets?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to give that information

to the member and the House. I'm sorry, I'll have to take it as notice

because I don't have that information in the House at this time.

MR. PASSARELL: It has been reported that the purchase price

is some $5 million. Will the minister explain why assets worth $12

million have been sold for less than half their value?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will give further detail as to he price

when I bring the answer to the first question back to the House. Rather

than leave the illusion that the assets have been sold for half the

price.... First, all the assets have not been sold. There will still be

other assets yet for sale. There will still be equipment that is

saleable and will be sold. Secondly, the greatest saving to the

taxpayer is that which will be a continual saving as the years go on.

Since the government has been involved in the running of that service,

we have subsidized that service to more than $50 million; this past

year there has been $8 million to $9 million in subsidy. With the sale

of the buses, that, of course, will not be a burden which the taxpayers

will have to carry in the years to come.

MR. PASSARELL: Will the minister confirm that the lucrative

Vancouver-Victoria run has been purchased by Wally Watson, former

assistant general manager, and Bjorn Bjornson, former controller with

the company?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe those are the names, and I

think there is one other name. Again, I have already taken that

question as notice. I'll be glad to bring the details back.

MR. BLENCOE: My question is to the same minister on he same

topic. This topic is of deep concern to Vancouver slanders. Indeed,

there is some resentment about how this whole matter has been handled

by this government. What assurance will the minister give that the bus

service on Vancouver Island, under the operation of Gray Line of

Victoria, will continue without reduction or disruption, despite he

withdrawal of all provincial financial assistance for this essential

service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As I understand the negotiations. they were very

good negotiations and the companies involved have given as much assurance as

any private company can give. You know, the member is asking me to be clairvoyant

as to whether the fares will be increased or service will be changed two, five

or ten years from now. I assume that any business that purchases an organization,

such as the group that he is mentioning, will be governed, as all free-enterprisers

are, by the people who use the service. If they do not provide a good service,

they will not be getting the business. It will be as simple as that. I'm

sure that they understand that just as well as most free-enterprisers in the

province.

MR. BLENCOE: That's a very weak answer. We don't ask you to

be clairvoyant; we're asking you to give assurance o the people of

Vancouver Island that they will continue a service that is essential,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page

3475 ]

MR. BLENCOE: That is no answer to the people of Vancouver Island at

all, Madam Minister. I want to know what type of performance bond Gray Line

has posted to give assurances of the quality of service on Vancouver Island.

This is an essential service, and you're giving no answer to the people

on this Island, Madam Minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! Hon. members, the Chair

repeatedly has advised the second member for Victoria about addressing

questions to the Chair. This will be the last advice the Chair will

give that member on the very same subject.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the assurance that we can

give the people of Vancouver Island is that we have successfully been

able to find operators with experience who will be able to retain a

service which was heretofore subsidized dearly by the people of

Vancouver Island, and they will no longer have to subsidize it.

MR. BLENCOE: Transportation to be able to get to your own

home is essential. Will the minister advise what consideration was

given to the safety record of an affiliate company of Gray Line, Conmac

Stages Ltd., in awarding the Vancouver Island bus service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will answer the association vis-à-vis

safety because we, too, were very concerned, especially since the

tragedy on Vancouver Island, that all safety measures would be taken

into consideration in the sale of these companies. Perhaps not the

member who has asked the question but certainly the members of this

House will be pleased to know that that same safety operation — the

same garage that was very successful in keeping a very good safety

record for PCL — will be retained by the companies just as it was

before the sale. I am also assured that the people in whose hands we

have now placed these companies have a very competent record, and that

only two of the directors of the company on Vancouver Island are

associated with another bus firm, and they are simply directors.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO BCR

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question taken as notice

Thursday last. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not present

at this moment, asked questions with respect to the British Columbia Railway

debt retirement. I paraphrase his questions for the sake of brevity. The member

sought confirmation that B.C. Rail sinking funds have been used in the past

to purchase bonds issued by related provincial Crown corporations. It is a matter

of public record that BCR sinking funds have been used in the past to purchase

bonds of other provincial Crown corporations and in some instances bonds of

the British Columbia Railway itself. This is a practice that has been followed

in the past for a variety of sinking funds. A condition of all these transactions

is, of course, that they must be carried out at then-current market rates so

that the sinking funds earn the same return which they would obtain through

investments outside the provincial government sector or the provincial government

area of activity.

[2:30]

The member for Nanaimo then asked, in a supplementary, whether the

$470 million, which is admittedly the subject of a bill now before this

House, cannot be used to acquire bonds issued by related Crown

corporations, and the question of whether the sinking funds could be

used to purchase "bank paper" to be used to finance the Tumbler Ridge

branch line. I say again. for that member and for the record of this

House, that the payment of $470 million cannot be used to finance the

Tumbler Ridge branch line. My answer could be lengthier were it not

then infringing on the fact that the debate on the bill will occur at

some time.

Finally, the hon. member stated in a

preamble to his last question

that B.C. Railway's financial statements for the year ending December

31 –– 1982. have notes to the effect that the interest and repayment of

the cost of construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line has been

guaranteed by the province of British Columbia. I think the member then

asked if it is reasonable to assume that the provincial guarantee is to

be withdrawn. That member would know, having served briefly as a

Minister of Finance, and the Leader of the Opposition — for the time

being — would also know, having served as Minister of Finance, that the

question of a provincial guarantee is a broadly issued satisfaction to

those who purchase debentures and bonds and who invest in the credit of

the province of British Columbia. The existence of a provincial

government guarantee enables Crown corporations — B.C. Rail and others

— to borrow at rates somewhat lower than would otherwise be the case

were there no guarantee. I emphasize in this answer that the provincial

guarantee does not mean that the line will not be self-supporting. That

guarantee guarantees all Crown corporation debt including, for example,

B.C. Hydro and Power, which in that case is entirely self-supporting.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I thought that the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) would be continuing the debate which he adjourned.

Perhaps he has something else besides this budget which has caused him

some concern: perhaps he got a copy of the auditor-general's report on

his ministry, or perhaps the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has

asked him for an appointment in his office later this afternoon.

Whatever it is, I certainly find it timely to take my place in this

debate on this motion founded upon the actions of my colleague from

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann): the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave

the Chair be amended to read that this House regrets that, in the

opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of Finance, by his failure to

even mention, much less address, the most obvious problem of record

unemployment, has denied many of our citizens the right to participate

in our society and thereby condemned them to a life of subsistence — I

might even say, to the soul-destroying fate of a life of subsistence,

because to live in subsistence is not to participate. It is not really

to do much more than exist, as does maybe a star-fish on the bottom of

the ocean. That is not what human beings were placed on this earth for,

Mr. Speaker — not to subsist, but to grow, to participate, to

communicate and

[ Page 3476 ]

to work; to work for each other in order to make the world a better place and to realize our full potential.

Mr. Speaker, in the weekend Province, the business editor, Ken Bell, wrote

an article, "Bill Should Back Off, " which said:

"Last Monday's B.C. budget delivered by Finance Minister

Hugh Curtis underlines the extent to which the application of restraint has

passed beyond the degree considered desirable by most Socred voters. Unfortunately,

however, just as there's no such thing as being half-pregnant, there's

no such thing as voting only for the good points of a political party. When

you cast your vote, you take the whole party, warts and all. That's especially

true of the Socred Party."

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see an

article like this from Mr. Ken

Bell, who writes some very excellent articles on computers and is very well

respected for his articles on data-processing, and I think fairly well respected

for most of his articles on B.C. business. But he has said that the government

should back off. He said:

"More helpful, surely, would have been some attempt by

Curtis to explain just why the B.C. unemployment figures are so high

(reputed to be about the fourth highest among the 60 states and

provinces which make up Canada and the U.S.)

"B.C. was supposed to lead Canada out of the recovery.

It demonstrably isn't at the moment, and people are entitled to know

why."

[Mr. Pellon in the chair.]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the statement by Mr. Bell has been rechecked,

and it is correct. The only state with a higher unemployment figure

than B.C. Is West Virginia, with 15.7 percent. The next highest is

Alabama with 12.3 percent. In Canada, only New Brunswick, with 15.6

percent, and Newfoundland, with 21.7 percent, have higher rates of

unemployment. And yet unemployment was not mentioned.

In my riding, and in the Kootenay West region of Canada Manpower, we

have right now the highest rate of unemployment in the province: 23.6

percent. That compares with other very seriously affected regions —

region 6, which would be Vancouver Island, has 18.2 percent

unemployment. That's very serious unemployment. The Kamloops region has

19.9 percent. The Okanagan region has 17.8 percent. Indeed, there's

only one region on the list with less than 10 percent unemployment and

that is East Kootenay. With the government's coal policies, they are

going to try to reverse that as well. The government has done such a

poor job. A few years ago they were saying how British Columbia was

going to lead the way into recovery. In this budget we have the very

hopeless prediction — and the minister said it — that we will likely

not come out of this recession before we enter the next one here in

British Columbia. That is now the admission.

Mr. Speaker, with 23.6 percent unemployed the government intends to

kill the second-largest employment base — maybe even the largest

economic base — in the city of Nelson in that West Kootenay region,

which is so seriously affected. At this time the government is

deliberately refusing to listen to proposals which could cut back quite

drastically on some of the costs of operating the David Thompson

University University Centre. But it has to be remembered that it was

the government that set up this very awkward model for running a

university centre. It was the government that shut down Notre Dame

University. Then they said that instead of having a single entity they

would have a university centre. The first and second years would be

offered by the local community college, and third and fourth years

would be offered by the University of Victoria, which has done a very

good job. They have delivered; they have put a lot of effort into it.

The president of the university has put a lot of his personal time,

energy and effort into the David Thompson University Centre.

Mr. Speaker, it was such an awkward model that funding, at times,

got absolutely lost in the Ministry of Education. Funds from the

Ministry of Education were sent to Selkirk College ostensibly for the

operation of David Thompson University Centre, but great amounts of

those funds were taken by the college and then the centre was charged a

fee for service. I think that if you looked at the true cost of

operation of the university centre, you might find that some of the

money was being bled off to some extent by the college administration

for purposes other than those intended — maybe for a little bit more of

the centralization which seems to be the preferred mode of operation of

the administration of Selkirk College. In saying this, I realize that a

lot of the people who serve on the board of Selkirk College — in fact

all but one of those who were on the board prior to the government

doing away with all of the school board appointees — were very

cooperative and helpful. I believe he is one of the ones who was let go

when the minister brought in a complete list of appointees.

Mr. Speaker, there was no advertising of the activities of David

Thompson University Centre. It was one of the best kept secrets in

British Columbia. The person who was supposed to go out and do the

selling was an employee of Selkirk College. She felt that if she went

out and did too good a job for David Thompson, then maybe she wasn't

doing the job for Selkirk College. Selkirk College is a community

college, and it should sell itself in the local region. David Thompson

University Centre was a provincial institution offering programs that

were unique in the province — indeed, unique in the country. It offers

a rural education program in which students study and do practicums,

not only in major cities but out in little one-room schoolhouses where

the teacher maybe has to kick a bear off the front porch with a broom

before the children can be dismissed from school in the afternoon.

These are some of the real anecdotes that have been brought back to the

college by some of the students.

[2:45]

1 think that every one of those people last year got a job. While

many graduating people in education were not able to get jobs, there

was a demand for a teacher who was trained in that way. At the same

time, we have a government which is saying that if you want to get

employment, you've got to get real technological training and go into

engineering. Look at the success of the graduates from the faculty of

engineering at the University of British Columbia last year. I believe

that less than a quarter of them have jobs today, so that is not the

answer either. The answer is that the government must have a will to

govern for all the people of this province and not to impress their

friends, whether their friends be very famous people in Japan like the

Prime Minister, who some of them get to rub shoulders with once in a

while, or impressive industrialists in Nippon Kokan and various other

industries of the Pacific Rim. We know that the Pacific Rim is

important to the economy of British Columbia, but the people of British

[ Page 3477 ]

Columbia are the most important resource that we

have. If we have a will, we can provide for those people employment and

educational opportunities that allow all of them to participate. There

is an emphasis on arts at that University Centre; on creative arts and

practical arts and arts programs that lead toward employment; saleable

skills; practical skills in creative writing, and the experience of not

just writing something creative but seeing a play actually being

performed with music written as a score for the production. There is an

integration of performing arts, written, graphic and photographic. All

types of programs are being integrated.

These things perhaps cost money. The people of Nelson were never

given a chance to participate in the concern that the minister had over

the costs. We were shut out of it. It was in the hands of a board, only

one or two of whose directors came from Nelson, or in the hands of the

University of Victoria. The city of Nelson listened to what the

minister had to say if the minister didn't listen to what the city of

Nelson had to say. They have a list of proposals, very short and

succinct, and I think that it does point the way toward a more

efficient, cleaner, leaner operation. It doesn't create another

university in the province. Here are some of the things that could be

done. They propose that funding allocations for the Selkirk College

programs offered at David Thompson University Centre be under the

Minister of Education's own funding formula model. They realize that

that would lead to a reduction in the amount of money, but they are

sure that there are ways in which this can be met. For instance, the

city of Nelson is aware that the implementation of the new funding

formula at David Thompson University Centre will mean drastic

reductions at the centre but will represent considerable cost savings

to the Ministry of Education, if they were to go under formula funding.

I talked earlier about the problem of having someone from Selkirk

College going out trying to sell the University Centre. The city of

Nelson is willing to fund a marketing and development office serving

the needs of both the city and the David Thompson University Centre.

The director of the office would report to the director of the centre

and to the city council. Within this academic year, a little before

Christmas, a person with considerable business experience in Victoria

and who has moved to Nelson, a person whose spouse happened to be an

executive assistant to the Social Credit government in about 1976-77,

went out and did some marketing and selling of the rural education

program. She enlisted 76 bona fide, qualified applications into what

would have been a limited enrolment of 25 people. That is just one

example of the type of activity that could go on and address the

minister's concerns about low enrolments. It would be very conceivable

that one might have to double the enrolment in those years of the rural

education program.

The city, the people of Nelson, are willing to underwrite that

expense. We put up our money just as we did when many people subscribed

privately to put up those buildings years and years ago. Nelson is not

a city that goes begging for handouts and government largesse. Nelson

is a city that goes out and does things for itself, and that is why

those buildings are there. That is why Nelson has its own electric

power plant and had electric power before Victoria and Vancouver. That

is why Nelson had the first electric railway. That's why in the middle

of the Depression Nelson built a recreational complex, which still

serves the city today. It has two sheets of ice in the same building,

with library facilities, a badminton hall and other things. Nelson is a

city that doesn't look for largesse. It doesn't look for handouts.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: There's a native of Nelson. I would hope he would be fighting with me on this issue, not against me.

The community is willing, to consider creating a community-wide

sinking fund debenture and to initiate that to ensure a base of seed

money for program enhancement, with a specific percentage earmarked for

promotion of the centre. We're talking about debentures, which is the

kind of thing we have done before to get ski hills off the ground. The

beneficiaries are not just the people who take

part in the recreation;

they are the local motels, restaurants and entertainment facilities. We

would be willing to put up money in debentures. If the minister will

reconsider it, if he will allow this kind of plan to go ahead, I will

put up $2,000 in those debentures. I'm making that offer here and now

in this House. I'll put up that much of my annual salary, after tax. If

the minister will listen to this proposal. which I think has a great

deal of sense to it. We can get those per capita costs down to the kind

of ratio that the minister feels is more appropriate.

We have had a marketing study. It's regrettable that it was only

done this year. It's regrettable that it was only done, maybe, after

there was some pressure. In fact, it's regrettable that the minister

didn't show his concern, or that his predecessor didn't show concern

about this and allowed it to go on. He should have been showing concern

two years ago. Two years ago you should have given us a couple of years

to address these problems, and allowed the people and the community to

get involved. If we lose this, we are losing the opportunity for a kind

of educational experience which doesn't just serve the people of

Nelson. It enriches the city of Nelson, but it also serves young people

from all over the province. Many notable graduates have gone through

those halls. My colleague who sits right here, the member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell), is one of those people. Miss Nola Landucci is another

person who went to Notre Dame University, and went through those very

same buildings, and took

part in the building of that idea of

educational opportunity beyond the metropolitan area.

The city of Nelson would be open to discussions relating to the

release of the Mary Hall building. The city, and possibly the regional

district. would continue to maintain and operate the facility with a

lease-back arrangement for the five classrooms contained in it. The

recreational food centre would be used to encourage community and

campus cooperation, as well as provincial tourism. The city would be

willing to entertain the taking over of what I think is one of the most

expensive operations of that campus. There again is where we see some

of the problems of having it administered from Selkirk Colleize on a

sort of fee-for-service basis, rather than being operated directly by

the people who have the most at stake.

The city of Nelson has been alarmed and put on a state of alert

several times by the principal of Selkirk College, Mr. Leo Perra. Three

separate papers have been put out since last summer, calling for

centralization, for the closing down of David Thompson University

Centre. They are even suggesting that the Rosemont campus vocational

school could be shut down and moved to a central Castlegar campus, that

a building valued on the books at more than $12 million right

[ Page 3478 ]

now — and which, no doubt, would cost more than $20

million to replace — could somehow be shut down and rebuilt at another

campus. In these proposals we're also moving a library collection.

Right now the estimates are that it is going to cost $75,000 just to

move the library books and build new space to house them at Selkirk

College. This particular kind of assault has been going on in tandem.

There are people in the minister's ministry who are former

administrators up there. I'm talking about your ministry; I'm not

talking about the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications.

There are people in there who have been feeding you advice, and they

have been giving the minister the wrong advice.

The way it was set up I was even surprised that it could last as

long as it did, because there was not a wholehearted effort on behalf

of everyone who was engaged in it. When the closure was announced, it

was almost like jackals coming in on a kill for the scraps and pieces.

I have three papers authored since last August. They all talk about

centralization, cutting down programs and centralizing everything

through the Castlegar campus. The people of Nelson — myself included —

voted for a community college to be located at Castlegar. The two don't

have to be in such competition. I think the roles of the two have

certainly been spelled out in such a way that they aren't in

competition. Nevertheless, you'll always find empire builders in a

bureaucracy, and it is our obligation as politicians — a profession

which I think is somewhat noble, even though it's not always held in

the highest esteem — to watch bureaucrats who are possessed with empire

building. When they are possessed with building centralized empires, we

must watch them even more diligently. I ask the minister to consider

this modest proposal, to use his imagination to realize that there can

be considerable cost savings and that this idea need not die and it

will not die. Someday there will be another election, and if there is a

change of government, this idea will be resurrected very, very quickly.

It's part of our policy. While the current government closed down Notre

Dame University, they saw it as necessary to create the David Thompson

University Centre. The minister has shut it down without even seeing

what goes on there. You have listened to the wrong advice. You should

look about you very carefully to the people you think are seeking to

help you and guide you. I think you should very much reconsider the

kind of information you've been getting. You should become a little bit

more informed on the problem that has been going on for many, many

years.

[3:00]

The people who are advising you are fighting an old battle. That's

an old battle of the late sixties and early seventies. The minister

should took at this with fresh, new ideas, and there are fresh, new

ideas in this proposal. The city will be a much better watchdog of

cost-efficiency. The people of the local area will put in their own

money to help make this work. With that kind of vigilance.... Believe

me, there's nothing more efficient than local, municipal government.

They're the ones who really watch everything. They get the best out of

every dollar, and that is the way to approach this particular problem.

I wouldn't want to say anything in this debate that would maybe give

more vent to my feelings than to my reason. There is

an act which

governs this particular institution, where so many people are going to

lose their jobs. Just how much disruption can one community stand? The

highest unemployment in the province! There is an agreement between the

province and the old Notre Dame board, and that agreement says that the

province agrees that: "Courses should be offered at the facility that

will enable students to begin and complete university degrees in arts

and sciences, education and fine arts. The province will cause the

educational lessee of the facility, within the scope of its limits and

authority, to provide university-level courses and programs." That is

an agreement. That agreement was ratified by the Legislature. I don't

know if it's going to be the subject of some sort of action in the

courts if that agreement is broken, but that isn't the important thing.

The important thing is that there is an opportunity here. It is the

first opportunity that the community has had to know what was wrong up

there. The community has some ideas, and I think that something really

good could happen if you challenged those ideas. It need not be costing

the government $2.7 million every year. Forget about how much is going

into that region per capita, because that is really a spurious piece of

information. If you were to look at Burnaby and say: "In Burnaby there

is so much going in per capita, beclargesse.ause you've got Simon Fraser

University, BCIT and one or two other institutes.... .. If you looked

at the Point Grey riding you could say: "In Point Grey they've got so

much per capita because they've got the University of British

Columbia." But when you say that it's costing so much per student, then

you're starting to get on to some legitimate ground. The city — and

people — are willing to put up money to see that this employment and

cultural base and this educational opportunity for our citizens is not

lost.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is expensive, When a student comes out of the University of

British Columbia — from which I graduated in the faculty of education —

goes into a rural school and suddenly finds that he can't cope, in

about December of the year he quits. Somebody else comes in in mid-year

and lasts about three or four weeks, and then somebody else finishes

out the year. That has not been the experience with students trained in

the rural education program. Students educated in the arts are finding

types of employment opportunities, because a lot of this is

employment-oriented. In the writing program they're working with word

processors. It is a unique experience, and outstanding authors are

coming to the program.

One of my early high school days friends is a person by the name of

Cameron Porteous, the art director of the Stratford Theatre. He came to

Nelson because of the program that is going on there, gave a lecture

and shared his skill and experience with students and others in the

community. All of that is now lost. Do you mean that we should never

have it in any community in this province, when you ask why one

community should have it when others don't? Must education in British

Columbia always be on the lower mainland or here on the southern tip of

Vancouver Island? The reason that it is in Nelson is that it was there

before any of the community colleges. It was a lighthouse for the idea

that post-secondary education should extend beyond Hope, and that was

realized when the government of its day brought in the community

college plan. Why should we now destroy that lighthouse?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

[ Page 3479 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you brought our

attention back to the amendment. I would just like to quote a portion

of the amendment which the NDP moved and seconded the other day: "That

the Minister of Finance, by his failure to even mention, much less

address, the most obvious problem of record unemployment, has denied

many of our citizens the right to participate in our society and has

thereby condemned them to a life of subsistence."

I'd like to come back to that "life of subsistence" later on, but

first of all I don't believe that the amendment is anywhere near

realistic. I think it could identify a number of areas, but to say to

this House — and to the people of British Columbia — that by this

budget they have been condemned to a life of subsistence is

unrealistic. I suggest that the credibility of the party who brought

forward that amendment is seriously in jeopardy, for two reasons which

I'd like to point out to this House today.

One reason is that a week ago members of that party took the

opportunity, when the ombudsman's report was filed in this House, to

viciously attack the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). They

called for his resignation. Then when the report was found by the

ombudsman to be somewhat in error, the ombudsman — rightly so, and to

his credit — apologized to the Minister of Forests publicly, by letter

and in this House. The letter was read out to people in this chamber,

and of course it was public knowledge throughout the province. I

compliment the ombudsman and his office for doing that. But when I talk

about the credibility of the opposition, why is it so difficult for the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the forestry critic, who in this House

a week ago called for the Minister of Forests' resignation? Now, when

the Minister of Forests has been vindicated and apologized to by the

ombudsman, why doesn't that member for Alberni, who is a leadership

candidate of that party, stand up in this House and publicly apologize

for those comments that he made in the heat of debate? I will give him

credit for that; part of the reason we sometimes do things in this

House may be that we get carried away and make statements which

afterwards we probably feel we shouldn't have. But after finding that

the ombudsman recognized the error, it would seem to me that that

member, if he's going to be a leadership candidate of a party, should

certainly have the decency to apologize for the attack he took on the

Minister of Forests.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is a former

Attorney-General of this province and a Queen's Counsel; a man who

knows not just justice in the courts but social justice, and knows the

impact that statements made by leading politicians in this province can

have on another politician just through the news media, through

reporting of statements made in this House — not just on the man

himself, as the Minister of Forests, but on his family, on his wife and

children. It would seem to me that a man who has been in this House for

a number of years, who is a Queen's Counsel and a former

Attorney-General, would be the first to stand up in this House and

apologize for the comments that were made to this House on the matter

of the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Did he apologize?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, he hasn't done it yet: I'm hoping that

maybe they'll come forth after my comments this afternoon. Maybe they

will get up and make the apology.

But, Mr. Speaker, that brings into question the credibility of the

opposition, and of course the credibility of this motion that they have

put before the House.

[3:15]

The second issue I find difficult to understand is the comments made

by opposition members on the payment of funds to B.C. Rail. I mentioned

this earlier in my speech on the budget itself, but it's worth

repeating.

.Members of the opposition sat on a two-party committee on Crown

corporations, and as a result of their investigations of B.C. Rail,

they made certain recommendations with regard to the historical debt of

the BCR. The report on the inquiry into the B.C. Railway' April 20,

1982, by the Committee on Crown Corporations stated: "The government

should assume the railway's net outstanding long-term debt, which stood

at $662,809,000 at December 1980. In return the railway should issue

to the government common shares of equal value." The report went on to

say, with regard to comments made concerning the morale of the BCR

management and staff and in their hearings: "Nobody likes to be

associated with an organization that is losing millions of dollars."

One of the reasons, of course, for those losses was the interest on

that long-term historical debt. The committee went on to speak about

the annual grant of funds to B.C. Rail from the Legislature; it's about

$70 million a year that we've been paying to them to help offset the

costs of that long-term debt. While that assistance was welcomed by the

railway, it "does not adequately address the long-term problems

associated with the debt. The grant merely defers the time when the

province will have to make good its guarantee, and leaves the railway

vulnerable to changes in government policy."

In April, 1982, the Committee on Crown Corporations, on which

members opposite sat, made that recommendation. It seems strange to me

that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) would stand in this

House and criticize, or that the member who just came in, the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would take exception to the payment by the

government to the BCR to do away with that obligation for the

historical debt. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald),

the former Attorney-General, and the gentleman who just spoke, the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) were on that committee, along

with two other NDP members; one of them was not re-elected, and the

other decided that he should find other work as opposed to being an

MLA. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, those are pretty good reasons why the

credibility of the NDP is somewhat in jeopardy in this province. You

attempt to make issues where issues do not exist; you attempt to make

statements which you feel are in your political best interest when you

are sitting on Crown corporations committee, but don't take into

consideration that we may act on a committee's recommendation. And then

where do you go? You attack the very thing you recommended. I suggest

your credibility is slipping rather badly.

Mr. Speaker, we've moved to relieve the BCR of that historical debt.

No service in this province is directly affected by the moving of that

debt. If you look at it for a moment, in moving those dollars over to

the BCR sinking fund....

MS. SANFORD: You're outrageous.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm outrageous? The lady says I'm

outrageous. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the amount of dollar you

see that we would have as BCR. and BCR's

[ Page 3480 ]

funding, and we guarantee it.... I know every member opposite who

stands up in this House says.... Even the member for Comox says

time and again that the debt you guarantee in the Crown corporations

is debt of the province. You say that every year we come in with a

budget; you tell us we're only in a deficit of so many billion. "That's

not true," you say. "You forget to add the Hydro debt, you forget to

add the BCR debt." All that we're doing is now identifying it as a

direct debt of government, as opposed to a guaranteed debt of the BCR.

So you can't have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment about what I we're

attempting to do in this budget, not condemning people to a life of

subsistence. We're attempting to address the question with regard to

prevention as opposed to the cure.

We're attempting now to arrive at a time when we don't have to look

at short-term solutions and end up with long-term pain in the end

because we increase the deficit of this province to where the taxpayer

will have to pay more and more money to prop up a government that would

be over loaded with debt.

You see, as I've said many times in this House before, Mr. Speaker, it's not the government's money we're

talking about; it's the people's money we're talking about, the

people who pay the taxes. If we look at the short-term method that these

people talk about all the time, creating jobs, in most cases those types of jobs

we'd be creating would be make-work jobs with very little productivity.

I don't think that's the way we want to go. I know that's not the

way we t want to go. I think the member for Comox said: "Why don't

you ask the people?" We did. We asked the people in May 1983, and the people

came through with flying colours and said: "We want you to practise restraint.

We know in the short term there's going to be some pain, but we recognize

that in the long term, for the benefit of our children and the opportunity for

jobs in this province, your approach is correct. You cannot buy your way out

of debt." So, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the opportunities here for

prevention as opposed to short-term cures.

We basically said that we've got to have a system of less government

in people's lives. We've got to have a system where we don't continue

to increase taxation. And we've got to have a system that allows our

industry and our businesses in this province to compete in the world

marketplace. We're short-sighted if we think all that we do is trade

things back and forth, or buy and sell things back and forth in Canada

or in British Columbia. Nonsense! Where we get our dollars is in the

export market. If you price yourself out of the export market, Mr.

Speaker, your revenues drop, and drop drastically. If we allow that

opportunity to the private sector to have the ability to compete, if we

can show leadership as a government, saying we're controlling our

costs.... Recognize that when you negotiate a contract, you ensure

that your employees know that the impact on the end price of your

product is substantial if you allow ever-increasing wage settlements. I

think the private sector is coming through, and I think the employees

are coming through. They recognize that the problem is not just within

this province but is worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, we look at the fact that government's got so involved

in people's lives. When you look at George Orwell's book 1984, where

we're at on the calendar, not according to the book but on the

calendar, it happened....I guess in his book it just grew that way,

because people kept saying: "Let government do it." All of a sudden

government became the master instead of the servant of the people.

That's what the opposition advocates. They want government to be the

be-all-and end-all. They love people to come to government and say:

"You do it for us." But you find out in the end that the cost is too

great.

MR. HOWARD: That's not true and you know it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the learned member for Skeena

says: "That's not true and you know it." I'd like to have him explain

someday, in economic terms — don't garble it up with social terms — why

government competes in business. Why does government compete in chicken

plants? Why does government compete in turkey plants? Why does

government compete in the building of railway cars? Why does government

compete in those areas that that opposition party moved into in their

term? That's one of the problems. They would slowly move in and compete

in those fields that are historically left to the private sector and to

competition in the marketplace. I can grant you that there are one or

two areas that even my philosophy can accept. I guess one might well be

B.C. Hydro, because that's a utility and it affects the life of all the

people in British Columbia — as opposed to competition in the

marketplace. I guess I sometimes have difficulty with even that.

Nevertheless, they'd move well beyond utilities and get right into

competition in he marketplace — whether its beef or chickens or turkeys

or many other thing that you can think of — if you gave them the time.

The people didn't give them the time between 1972 and 1975. They

finally recognized what was happening, and as a result that party only

served in power for three years.

I just want to touch on two other things. One is when they talk in

their motion about "record unemployment" and "condemned them to a life

of subsistence." A few of their members mentioned the Ministry of

Labour's program for young people: the 1984 jobs-for-youth program. I

think the member from Burrard, I believe it was, made the comment that

young people are going to have to go begging for jobs. We don't see

that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: For the benefit of the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), she was referring to the fact

that the young person had to go to a company, to a small business, to a

farm operation, and knock on the door, so to speak, and say, "I'm here

because I would like you to create a summer job for me, if it's at all

possible, " and have the opportunity to say to that person: "There is a

program of government that will assist in you paying my wage." In other

words, we're having those young people, as the second member for Surrey

(Mr. Reid) says, develop some initiative to go out and talk to

potential employers and to sell themselves as good workers, as young

people willing to learn, and saying to those potential employers: "I'm

here and I'm prepared to work hard, and the government is prepared to

be a partner with you in my development. They're prepared to pay part

of the wage for my summer employment." It's a great concept, and I

compliment the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for bringing in

this program. There are some employers — small busy businessmen — who

may not even have been aware of the program that was available to them

in the past. But we can take thousands of students — young, aggressive,

enthusiastic students — and send them out there as salesmen and tell

them to knock on doors, to say to potential employers: "I'm here. I'm

willing to work. Give

[ Page

3481 ]

me a job. The government is your partner in my development." The Minister

of Labour is giving those young people the tools to enable them to aggressively

seek opportunities for summer employment. I think it's a great concept.

It's a $10 million program and it will result in some 8,400 jobs.

When we go on to the difficult times we've been through and the fact

that we've had to cut our programs.... Yes, we've had to cut the

budgets of all our ministries, with the exception of Health. We've had

to cut our cloth to live within the ability of the taxpayer to pay. But

just so the members opposite don't think it's a free ride and say,

"Spend more, spend more, spend more, " there has to be a source of

funds in order to provide those programs. For their information,

because they probably haven't read their budget papers yet, 60.7

percent of our budget comes through taxation and 8.8 percent comes out

of natural resources. The reason that has gone down to that figure is

because....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member opposite says it's because we

have given it away. The reason is the world economy. They don't need

copper. They don't need other minerals or metals. When the economy is

slowed down in other parts of the world, it affects us. As I said

before, we rely on our export markets. So we can't get more money

there. We're trying. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) are out attempting to sell this

province's goods to foreign markets. We can't get it, Mr. Speaker, from

fees and licences — if you wish, we can get it from there, but we jack

up the cost of business to those people who are trying to survive the

recession and are looking for the opportunity to recover. We've got 4.8

percent that comes from the liquor distribution branch, and I guess

we're one of the heaviest taxers of alcoholic beverages. I guess we

could jack that up some more. But if we did, I imagine the member for

Atlin (Mr. Passarell) would complain considerably, and others might

complain — including me. We do heavily tax that product at the present

time, but we could get it from there.

Then we get the tax dollars that go to Ottawa and are laundered and

come back. We get about 19 percent from them. We can't tell them to pay

us more. We're having a tough enough time getting what they pay us

already out of Ottawa; they don't want to pay us any more. So what I'm

getting at, Mr. Speaker, is that the only source of additional revenue

is from heavier taxation on the people and the businesses of this

province. If you want to do that, then you're adding more straws to

that camel's back. They are now on the road to recovery, albeit slow,

but they are now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. There are

more people working in British Columbia today than there were two years

ago. If you want to tax them further, as the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford), would probably do.... She would tax the businesses. "Keep

loading it up; they can pay. The big shareholders own that; they can

pay." Well, I have got to tell you that if you continue to tax them,

you'll price them out of the marketplace, and then your whole economy

will collapse on your head.

[3:30]

Those are our sources of revenue. Where do we put it all? I know there may

still be some people in the audience from the Nelson area. I have to tell you

that when we bring all that money in, as the government, and then we distribute

it, we're taking 66 cents out of every dollar that comes into this government.

Two-thirds of every dollar goes to Health, Education and to Human Resources.

We spend small amounts on Transportation, on the development of our natural

resources and on aid to local governments, that also have their taxing problems.

We pay approximately 2.8 percent as interest on debt that we carry at the present

time. So if we increase taxation or we run into a deficit, it causes problems

for the government and for the economy of British Columbia. First, if you increase

taxation you affect the purchasing power of the consumer and industry and commerce.

Secondly, if you don't go that route and say: "Raise the deficit, forget

about the cost and just let her fly like they do in Ottawa...." If you

do that, the cost of servicing will be so great that in the end you will have

to cut back your programs.

Mr. Speaker, in making these comments I'm trying to address the

statement that they make in their amendment. The amendment is

unrealistic; it indicates the lack of credibility that the opposition

party has in the province of British Columbia today.

In closing, I can say that it is never easy to tighten your belt.

Whether it's an individual, a family or a provincial government. As I

said, we could take the easy way out. We addressed it and took the

tough way out. We said that we had to cut the cost of government. We

could have just carried on and paid for the programs that we had and

never questioned whether or not that program was still viable. We could

have just taken the easy way out and let the deficits run bigger and

bigger.

I'm not well-versed on the Nelson problem, but I would like to touch

on the David Thompson University. I'm told that one in five students

who choose to attend that university come from the Nelson area. I

assume the other four must go to other places elsewhere in British

Columbia, Canada or the United States to take their post-secondary

education. If you took the total number of students and the faculty,

you would have one faculty for six and a half students. I understand

that one-third of the students at DTUC come from the Vancouver Island

and lower mainland areas where alternative facilities with similar

programs are available to them. If that's the case, and if those

statistics are nearly accurate, I can understand the Minister of

Education, having to address that problem, dealing with it as he did.

As I said before, this government didn't choose the easy way out. We

took a tougher route, one that would bring criticism from special

interest groups, but one that is endorsed by the general public, the

taxpayers in this province. That was proven last December when the

Vancouver Sun did their poll, which indicated that at an

election the popularity of this party would be higher than it was three

months earlier, and that the NDP's popularity was less.

I cannot support the concept of short-term gain for longterm pain. I

cannot support the opposition's amendment. It's unrealistic and. as I

said, it's not credible. But I can support this budget, which looks to

a brighter future for all British Columbians.

MS. SANFORD: I'm pleased that the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs got up and spoke. We were supposed to hear today from

the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) on this amendment that

deals with levels of unemployment. I'm assuming, because the level of

unemployment right now in Kamloops is 19.9 percent, that if the

minister had not been frightened off by the auditor-general's

[ Page 3482 ]

report on what's happening within the Ministry of Tourism, then he's

frightened off by the unemployment figures for Kamloops. How could he

possibly oppose the amendment that we have placed, when the

unemployment rate in Kamloops stands at 19.9 percent? Based on that,

I'm not surprised he didn't get up and speak.

Following the minister's speech, I thought I would start today by

reading a little editorial that appeared in the Comox District Free

Press, dealing with the budget. These people, who are outside of this

party, who watch what's happening in British Columbia today, made the

following comments about this particular budget. I wish the minister

would listen. Perhaps he would change his perspective a bit and realize

that his government is on the wrong track entirely; that the words he

was presenting us with this afternoon have no relationship whatsoever

to what is really happening, in terms of what's happening to people, to

services and to the economy itself. They are very destructive in their

approach. This editorial, entitled "Budget, " says:

"Poor old St. Peter has been mugged so many times in

order to fill Paul's purse that he must be near to declaring personal

bankruptcy. And he isn't even left with the hope, in light of the cuts

to the Attorney-General's budget, of getting much compensation for the

crime."

Those of us who have been following what's happening with the Attorney-General's budget will recognize that reference.

"So you want your tonsils out; you got it. Of course,

the rest of the province is going to have to pay a 4 percent surtax

this year and a further 8 next year in order to pay for frills like

health."

The minister just told us that government should not raise taxes at

this stage. What about that 8 percent surtax related to paying for

health in B.C.? The editorial goes on:

"And if your convalescence calls for assorted

medications, you'll have to pay $175 before it's deductible, rather

than the former $125. Not to worry, though; you'll be able to save the

odd buck here and there. Human rights programs, for example, have been

cut in half. That should leave us rolling in the long green. And

schools, universities, income assistance, the ombudsman and student aid

grants have also been hit with chops of a greater or lesser degree, so

the future looks pretty affluent now."

They'll applaud that on the government benches. That's it: cut it

all down. Never mind what happens to those university students, those

kids in the classrooms. We're going to cut it down. We're going to save

the money.

The editorial continues:

"It all boils down to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Joe

Householder will be paying an extra $100 to $200 a year to be left ever

so slightly behind where they were last year. Mind you, the feds have

to be blamed for that, for being so pushy about health care.

"This budget remains dedicated to restraint. If that

is all Mr. and Mrs. J.H." — meaning Joe Householder — "are concerned

about, they should be moderately pleased. If, however, they are are the

sort of bleeding hearts who feel that a government has other

short-range obligations to the human element of the Pacific province,

they, while hardly surprised by Paul's actions, are possibly wondering

about St. Peter's future."

That editorial says a lot about the attitude of this government to

people and says a lot about the fact that the government is on the

wrong track entirely. We were told last year that the government had to

take these drastic measures in order to get the economy back on the

rails. What has happened since then? Unemployment has reached 202,000.

Seventy thousand young people are without work. Universities are going

to have to limit enrolments. We are going to have to pay an 8-point

surcharge on the income tax. We are going to have all kinds of cuts in

the health field, particularly in preventive health, which has been

virtually eliminated by this budget. Adult day-care centres will no

longer be funded. We are going to have all kinds of services privatized

in this province, and when that happens we know what happens to those

services in many cases.

I have been looking at what has been happening to people as a result

of this budget and the budget that was presented to us last July. I

have been looking at the fact that the gap between the rich and the

poor is increasing in this province. I have been looking at what is

happening to services. I find that many of our citizens are in

absolutely desperate circumstances at the moment and are facing yet

further cuts under the knife of this particular government.

I have been looking at what's happening to the resources of the

province, and the ombudsman's report certainly points out the

shortcomings that are taking place in that area. I have been looking at

what the economists are saying. The latest one, just this weekend, said

that this government is on the wrong track and is wedded....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I'm not talking about the Fraser Institute,

I can assure you. I dismissed them years ago. No way am I going to

accept what they are telling us. I know what they want us to think. I

know the kind of province that they want to see. These people have such

a slavish adherence to the philosophy and the doctrines and the

ideology of that Fraser Institute that that is all they can see. It is

unfortunate, because it has an absolutely devastating effect on this

province. This weekend we had more economists coming out and stating

that the government is misleading us through the figures that they are

presenting in this budget, and are also causing great damage in the

process to both the people and the economy.

We cannot afford to have Social Credit at the helm in this province.

The costs are outrageous with this government. They have tripled the

debt. We have the largest debt in the history of this province.

MR. REID: There'll be no debt soon.

MS. SANFORD: No debt soon. Well, isn't that interesting. I

assume that next year they are going to borrow $15 billion to pay off

the current debt. Is that what they are proposing? They borrowed $451

million this year in order to pay off the debt for B.C. Rail. So we

just borrow more and pay off more debt. Is that the way they are going

to handle this debt? I assume so. In a very few years you people have

piled the debt in this province so high that it almost matches on a per

capita basis what the federal government has piled on us — $5,400 per

capita provincially, $6,000 per capita federally. There isn't that much

difference anymore. I think that is news to the members sitting there

on the back bench.

[ Page 3483 ]

They don't realize the kind of debt this government has piled up.

They don't realize that many of the actions they're taking are going to

cost the people of this province far more in the long run by this

adherence to this ideology.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: They don't care, either.

MS. SANFORD: They can't care. Surely they must recognize that

young people can barely survive at this time on $375 a month, and there

are 70,000 of them out of work right now.

MR. REID: We've got them knocking on doors now. That'll help.

MS. SANFORD: They're going to knock on doors now. Oh, Mr.

Speaker, isn't that nice? These 70,000 young people can go out and

knock on doors, the doors will be open to them, and there will be work

for them.

MR. REID: You wait and see. There will be.

MS. SANFORD: I happen to know many young people who have been

pleading at every doorstep for something to do in order to try to make

ends meet. I have a picture that was in the local paper this week — I

wish I'd brought it with me — where one of the constituents, who has

been out of work for two years and has tried to find work in every

corner of the province, has taken a placard and has taken to standing on

the road: "Please give us a job."

MR. REID: He got a job. That's initiative.

MS. SANFORD: No, he did not get a job. That might be

initiative, but he has not got a job. Mr. Speaker, 202,000 people

knocking on doors and they're all supposed to come up with jobs?

MR. REID: There'll be jobs. Be patient. You'll be surprised.

MS. SANFORD: There'll be jobs! What a....

MR. REID: Just put a little business card on that says "I want a job."

MS. SANFORD: Oh, just give them a business card and they'll

find a job. Well, I'm sure that the 202,000 people who are currently

looking for work, who are losing their homes, who are unable to feed

their families and who are in absolutely desperate situations are going

to be pleased to hear from the member for Surrey that if they just get

a business card they'll find a job. What malarkey!

MR. REID: There are lots of jobs out there.

MS. SANFORD: There are lots of jobs out there? Two hundred and two thousand people....

MR. REID: They've got to get off their fannies and go look.

MS. SANFORD: I've never heard such ludicrous talk in my life.

We cannot afford a government prepared to subsidize the Japanese

steel industry. That's what they're doing with this northeast coal

development: $451 million that could be going to services to people, to

education and to health are going to be handed over to B.C. Rail. We

all know that thatos to help pay for that Tumbler Ridge extension, to

help to subsidize the northeast coal development. Those $451 million

are our tax dollars, and the government is telling us that they are

managing the province well. Mr. Speaker, 202,000 people looking for

work, and a handout of this type to B.C. Rail!

A government prepared to cut off the number of students who can

attend a university; a government prepared to lay people off, ensuring

that the economy of the province is affected adversely even further

than it is because they too are going to require government assistance

as a result of these layoffs a government prepared to cut services to

children and to seniors and at the same time take care of their friends

in the forest industry by the kind of giving-away of Crown timber we

heard about through the ombudsman's report — "Crown Timber for Free,"

an editorial in the Sun talking about the free log scandal; a

government prepared to pour money into putting out householder mailings

talking about the budget, at which time they give false or incomplete

information; a government prepared to have cabinet ministers flying all

over this globe is trying to tell us that they're doing a job for the

people of British Columbia. It doesn't make any sense. They're prepared

to ship raw logs out of this province knowing very well that every time

they undertake another shipment, they are shipping out the jobs of the

people of British Columbia. They are prepared to give away these free

gifts and at the same time cut back on basic services — even the

testing of motor vehicles is no longer a priority with this government.

Mr. Speaker, this government has known for a year that the major

forest corporations were getting free timber. They have known for a

year, from the Premier on down, that the money that was to be collected

to help pay for some of the services that people are being denied these

days was not being collected. They've known that for a year.

On TV the other day two prominent Social Credit members, who are

independent contractors contracting for B.C. Forest Products, stated

very clearly what the situation was. They stated very clearly that they

felt the Minister of Forests should step down and be replaced. All that

the government members are saying about apologies over here don't wash,

because we know that that timber has been given away to those companies

all of these months — money that should have been collected.

MR. REID: You know nothing.

MS. SANFORD: I think the second member for Surrey is saying

that I know nothing about the giveaway of this timber. Well. It's very

interesting that two people who are involved as contractors, who have

worked in the forest industry for years and are also prominent members

of the Social Credit Party, have stated very clearly that that timber

is being given away. They stated it on the TV again the other day. I

saw them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're wrong.

[ Page 3484 ]

MS. SANFORD: Oh, they're wrong? Oh, well. Gee whiz, has the...?

MR. REID: You'll be proven wrong. Then you'll apologize.

MS. SANFORD: I see. Mr. Speaker, these two people....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He does get to be a nuisance, I have to admit that.

These two gentlemen went on to say that the fact that the RCMP had

been called in to investigate this particular situation was in fact a

red herring. They said that this has been common knowledge to the

government members — at least to those on the cabinet benches — for a

year. They say that there should be an ombudsman right in the Forests

ministry itself to ensure that this kind of thing does not continue.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'm only quoting the members of your party, Madam Member.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You say you don't believe the members of our party.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, well, I'm just telling you. You obviously

don't believe them either. You're accusing them of not telling the

truth on TV the other day.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did I say that?

MS. SANFORD: Maybe you didn't; maybe it was your colleague.

Mr. Speaker, we know that they don't want an ombudsman. They've been

gunning for the ombudsman for well over a year. We've heard it coming

out of that corner of this House for over a year. They wanted to get

rid of that ombudsman's office. I've heard the speeches, and I've heard

the people state it on the radio. It's no wonder when the ombudsman

says that this government is giving their friends in the major

industries the timber and the resources of this province. It's no

wonder they want to do away with that ombudsman. They don't want him.

The other thing that these two gentlemen said on the TV....

These contractors are members of the Social Credit Party and have

contributed heavily to that party over the years, by their own

statements. I don't know whether you people accept their statements or

not, but I accepted that statement, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: They just accept the money? Oh, I see, But they

said that the major corporations and the Forests ministry have an

embrace. That can be translated very simply to say that the government

protects and governs for the major corporations of this province.

That's exactly what that statement means. I'm quoting your members on

TV the other day, because I wrote it down. I thought it was an

interesting comment.

MR. R. FRASER: Which members?

MS. SANFORD: Your members. Socred members. You all know the two people involved,

MR. REID: I don't know them.

MS, SANFORD: Oh, well, this is a quote from Mr. Ian Mahood and George Percy on TV the other day.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Name them.

MS. SANFORD: I named them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't have time to watch TV.

MS. SANFORD: I told you, Ian Mahood and George Percy, both of

them contractors, both of them Socreds and both of them contributing

heavily to your party. They are saying that you people are doing a

lousy job of collecting the money that is due to the taxpayers of this

province. They're also saying that from the Premier down you people

have known about this situation for well over a year and officials

within the Forests ministry have known longer than that. It is high

time, Mr. Speaker, that we ensured that the money that is due to us

from our resources comes to us and is not given away to those major

corporations.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

This weekend we heard from Robert Allen, yet another economist from

the University of British Columbia, who teaches in the economics school

out there. He made some interesting observations this weekend.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that one of your members?

MS. SANFORD: I don't know whether he's a member or not; I have no idea.

Mr. Speaker, after studying the information that is available

through Statistics Canada and the OECD, he announced that the

government has arrived at entirely the wrong conclusions and is basing

its budget on entirely wrong conclusions.

MR. REID: He sounds like one of your candidates. He's probably going to be one of your candidates.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, how about asking him to go and answer his phone — would you do that?

MR. REID: Or go and watch television, like you do.

MS. SANFORD: I think he should go and answer his phone.

Mr. Speaker, he is saying that, for instance, the government is

assuming that the budget pressures are such that they have to take out

what they consider to be frills in education. But he points out that in

British Columbia education spending is already well under control

because this province spends the least per capita on education in

Canada. So education spending is already well under control here. Yet

they insist that they have to chop and cut to ensure that the young

people

[ Page 3485 ]

in our classes are not able to attain their full potential by actions they are taking and the approach they are adopting.

[4:00]

He is also saying that investment in British Columbia, compared to

the other OECD countries, is already high. That's news to the Minister

of Finance, because what they are saying is that they have to cut down

on all of these services. They have to pay off things like the B.C.

Rail debt and that kind of thing, using money that should otherwise be

used for services to people, in order to attract investment. The other

thing that this economist said was that the economists who work for the

Ministry of Finance are really very well trained. They can read the

same data and come to the same conclusions, because they attended the

same school of economics at the University of British Columbia. They

took classes from this particular economist, whom I am quoting.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Some do.

MS. SANFORD: All right, I'm not saying all of them did.

What he is saying is that they know better. They can read the

statistics and draw the appropriate conclusions. But you can't draw

those conclusions if you have a political need and adherence to that

right-wing philosophy that's espoused by the Fraser Institute. You are

not able to deal with that then. That is the political input into the

interpretation of what is happening in terms of the economics of the

province.

So what they're asking is that the poor pay more and that those

people who are already suffering in this province pay again. In his

speech the Minister of Finance made no reference whatsoever to the word

"unemployment."

What's happening to people, Mr. Speaker? We find that with small

businesses there is a 23 percent increase in British Columbia in

bankruptcies, while bankruptcies in the rest of Canada are going down.

That figure alone should tell you something about the approach that you

have adopted. It should tell you that you could possibly, if you looked

again, be on the wrong track.

We find that people are lined up at food banks all over this

province, because they are not able to survive. They're not able to

feed their families. They are not able to keep their families together.

In the Advertiser in Courtenay this weekend there's a front-page

article that talks about the walkathon that the people in our district

are going to participate in in order to raise money to feed those

people who don't have food.

MR. R. FRASER: That's good community spirit.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, that's good. That's right. You abandon all

your responsibilities. You give away the timber. You pay off B.C. Rail.

You have your high-flying cabinet ministers all over the place and let

people go out and walk to raise food money in order to ensure that the

people of the province are fed. You people are a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, the organizers of this particular walkathon are

anticipating that more than 1,000 people will turn out on March 4 to

take

part in a walkathon to support the Comox Valley Food Bank.

" 'We're hoping to raise about $6,000, ' says

Dick Clarke, the Solidarity Coalition rep named to publicize the event. That

dollar figure represents the amount required to supply the food bank's larder

for about a month."

So we'll have over a thousand people out walking, trying to raise

enough money to ensure that the people in dire need within our area

will be fed for a month.

"The walkathon has been endorsed by local municipal

councils, and Courtenay city council has indicated that all the

aldermen and the mayor will be taking part. Clarke is hoping to get a

competition of mayors from Courtenay, Comox and Cumberland underway for

the event. 'We'd like this to be very visible, ' Clarke says. 'It could

encourage other communities to do the same' " — rather than turn people

away when they don't have food.

MR. REID: Community involvement. That's a good idea.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that's prepared

to say "hear, hear." when we know that people are so desperate for

food that they have to line up at food banks in order to ensure that their children

are fed.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MS. SANFORD: It is not rubbish. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

This government is prepared, at tremendous cost, to privatize a lot

of the services which we know are going to cost everyone more in the

long run than they are costing now. Let's just look at the testing

stations. Safety. Mr. Speaker, they have closed down the testing

stations for vehicles in Nanaimo. Victoria and Vancouver. They're going

to privatize it. The former director of the motor vehicle branch

indicated that if they raised the price to the motorist by 50 cents per

vehicle, they would be able to cover the costs of all that motor

vehicle testing.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Whitlock was a very respectable civil

servant. You might want to criticize him now that he's retired. But he

indicated very clearly that an additional 50 cents — in other words,

$5.50 — would enable us to test our vehicles. What's it going to be

when it's privatized, Mr. Speaker? Is it going to be cheaper for us?

MR. REID: I doubt it. The same amount of money.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, he doubts it. It's going to cost the same?

Well. I can assure you that we are going to pay far more for the kind

of testing that these people are proposing at this time — when and if

that ever happens. And in the meantime ICBC's report indicates that

there will be four additional deaths on the roads in the year through

the closure of those testing stations. The people of the province will

be paying far more through their insurance that they pay to ICBC

because of the removal of these testing stations — an additional $2.4

million. Oh, it's cheaper, they say, if you privatize.

[ Page 3486 ]

MR. READ: It's just more efficient. Nobody said cheaper

MS. SANFORD: More efficient! Four deaths and $2.4 million.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I believe the member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: They are prepared to risk safety in the

interests of following this particular philosophy that they have

adopted. As a matter of fact, this week the board of school trustees in

Courtenay made an appeal to the school trustees of the province, asking

that we have a full public inquiry into bus safety in this province. I

don't think the government is going to follow up on that. I don't think

they have any interest in that. We had an indication from the minister

responsible for the motor vehicle branch that the issue of bus safety

should be dealt with in a committee established through this

Legislature and headed by the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston).

The next day, when the proposal was advanced to the committee, it was

turned down by those Socred members — in spite of the Minister's

recommendation in this House that the issue of bus safety be dealt with

under that special committee which was established to look into the

privatization of motor vehicle testing.

Our young people can no longer afford this government. This summer

70,000 of them will be knocking on doors, each with a little card given

to them by the minister. They are going to be faced with a debt that is

unparalleled in the history of this province. That's going to be their

legacy from Social Credit. There's going to be a tremendous burden on

them now and in the future. It's an unacceptable burden. An elitist

approach has been adopted in terms of their education. If you can

afford to pay the huge increases that the universities are going to

have to charge for student fees, then you can go — that is, if the

university has enough room for you, because that too is in doubt.

They're going to have to cut out a number of people who are accepted.

There's no work for them. There's no longer financial assistance for

them through grants in this province. That will be eliminated. They are

going to be faced with crushing debt, thanks to Social Credit. If

they're under 25 they have $50 a month cut off their welfare — welfare

that they can't even survive on.

I think the $450 million that has been advanced to B.C. Rail is

probably for B.C. Rail to buy enough boxcars so that the 70,000 young

people who can't afford accommodation under the new welfare rate can

ride back and forth on the rails in boxcars. Could that be it?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It's just like the Dirty Thirties; you're right.

By the cutbacks in the whole reforestation program, they're destroying

their hopes in the future. They're destroying their aspirations, their

dreams. A whole generation of young people is being neglected and

adversely affected by the attitudes, the programs and policies of this

government. We can't afford them any longer.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on that

uplifting speech we have just heard. I really wonder how some of the

members of the opposition sleep at night. They're so very depressing,

and so depressed in the House here every day, it leaves us with the

feeling that they're all down in the dumps. They have no optimism.

They've given up. There's no hope. I guess that says in a nutshell why

they've lost every election, with one exception. To suggest that the

Socreds don't care.... On May 5 the majority of people in this

province believed that Socreds do care. That's why we took power again.

I think it's important to correct one of the many incorrect

statements made by the previous speaker: that is, the one to do with

the ombudsman's office. There is no opposition from the majority of the

Social Credit members with regard to the office of ombudsman. I think

that should be made very clear.

It's interesting to hear the statements made by the opposition about

"the crushing debt, thanks to Social Credit, that we're leaving for our

young people." Can you imagine the type of debt we would have if the

NDP were in power? They have the loose-the-purse-strings attitude:

let's go further into debt, let's give this to this person, let's give

more to that person. Where do they think the money's coming from? We

have one source of revenue, and that is the taxpayer. There just isn't

any more revenue to go around.

[4:15]

It's really interesting as well to compare their attitudes. Really,

the NDP members do realize the need for restraint, and they do practise

restraint. We should refer to the activities in their own head office

last winter. They knew that they were short of money, they knew they

were left with almost $1 million in debt, so they had to start laying

off. They know that's the way you have to counteract a shortage of

revenue. They laid off in their office, hon. members....

AN HON. MEMBER: By seniority?

MRS. JOHNSTON: By seniority. I think there's a bit of debate

on just exactly how they handled the layoffs. For some reason they can

apply the restraint to their own headquarters, but they can't apply it

when it comes to government operations.

The people of British Columbia and the investors really do have the

same amount of confidence in the province as do the Social Credit

members. In fact, some of the investors in British Columbia have so

much confidence in British Columbia's future that they are even

investing money in NDP tidings. I refer to the mill that's going to be

built in Chemainus. There really is hope for this province after all,

even if you listen to the doom and gloom that's proposed by some of the

members on the other side of the House.

Interjection.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We heard a great deal about it, Mr. Member,

when the mill closed down, but we're certainly not hearing anything

about it from the other side of the House now that it's going to be

rebuilt. I guess that everybody isn't concerned, because there's an NDP

member there temporarily. Eventually, I'm sure, we'll see a Social

Credit member there, and there will probably be even greater

investments.

On May 5 this government was re-elected on the basis of a pledge to

reduce government spending, and there is no member here who's happy to

say that we aren't in a position to be bringing in new programs and

that we're having to cut back

[ Page 3487 ]

on existing programs. But I think it should be a proud statement

we're making that after 31 years we are able this time to come in with

a budget that shows a slight reduction from the previous year's budget,

and I think our Finance minister is to be congratulated for being in a

position to do that.

Our Finance minister told the Legislature that the operating

expenditures in 1984-85 will be an estimated $7.9 billion. This is a

reduction of 6.2 percent from 1983-84. I wonder what would happen if we

weren't in government? What would happen to these people whose future

the NDP members are so concerned about us mortgaging? We're still

looking at a deficit of $671 million; hopefully we won't be looking at

this for too many more years. That amount does represent $650 per

household. The interest payments alone for 1984-85 are equal to the

combined budgets of seven of our ministries. So we have to be cautious,

and we have to continue on our program of restraint.

There is one major area of the government — and I think it's

important that we repeat this over and over again, because we're

constantly being criticized for the spending in the area of

health.... Our health spending this year will increase by $51

million. It's not an easy area to increase spending in, because of the

restraint having to be shown in other areas. But it shows the priority

adopted by this government, and health is certainly our number one

priority.

Our Finance minister has also told the Legislature that the

government has commissioned a study of business taxation in the

province, and the results will hopefully be coming forward this summer.

I think this is very important. Most of us — and I'm sure that includes

even those in the remote areas where they don't have quite as many

small business people — have received letters from our constituents

outlining the concern they have with business taxation. We can't

continue to increase the taxes to our business community and expect

them to continue to operate. The small business community is providing

the jobs in the province, and we have to ensure that they're able to

continue to carry on. I'm pleased that this is under review.

We also have an increase in the minimum property tax from $150 to

$175, starting in 1985. But it should be noted that the $1 minimum

stays in effect, and I think that this has not really been clarified

for the seniors and the handicapped. So there's no concern for seniors

and handicapped with regard to an increase; the $1 minimum remains in

effect for them.

I think some of the fiscal facts should be mentioned, and mentioned

over and over again because of the misinformation that seems to come in

regularly from members opposite. The provincial contribution, as far as

school costs are concerned, for each full-time-equivalent student is

$3,437, and we have an estimated 478,900 full-time students in this

province. The provincial contribution for each full-time-equivalent

student in our universities is $6,903. Can you imagine, $6,903, and

we have approximately 45, 660 full-time-equivalent students in our

universities. Now we go to the acute-care beds. The annual provincial

contribution per acute-care bed is $111,439 and there are 11,400

acute-care beds in this province. The annual provincial contribution is

$12,348 for each long-term care bed, and we have 16,400 in the

province. The annual general taxpayer contribution to the Medical

Services Plan is $179 per capita. We have an estimated provincial

population, as we know, of 2,800,000. We look down to the contributions

to local government. This year I think it is very important that we are

able almost to equal the contributions that were made to the municipal

governments last year, and that is only because there was a surplus

from the previous year. In consultation with the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, we are going to review the suggestions that are being

brought forward by the UBCM and the Finance ministry to attempt to come

up with a stable mechanism for revenue- sharing. This is a problem that

I am sure is applicable throughout the province. whether it be a large

municipality or a small municipality, and I think it is important that

they have a very early awareness of what they are going to be receiving

in the way of revenue- sharing.

As far as municipal affairs are concerned, I think it is important

that we look forward to more streamlining in the area of the Municipal

Act. We undertook some of this last year, and I think that the

cost-saving measures have proven very effective.

We have heard a great deal lately with regard to the cutbacks in the

Education budget, and in my community of Surrey it is very interesting

to note the change in the attitude of parents. Last fall we heard from

parents and from our school trustees on more than one occasion that

they wanted the decision- making on the spending of the local school

budgets to be left with the school trustees. They felt they elected

those trustees to make those decisions, and last fall they felt the

province was setting too many restrictions on the budgets. Things have

changed. Now that we have allowed the school boards to make all these

decisions and to make the necessary cuts, the parents are not

necessarily happy with some of those decisions, and we are seeing them

coming to the MLAs and saying: "We don't like what our school board is

doing. We would like you to step in. We don't want layoffs in March. We

don't want this subject cancelled. We don't want this program

discontinued. We would like to see the money spent in other ways." I

believe that more and more of the parents in our community, and I am

sure it applies throughout the province, are coming to realize that

things are not quite as cut and dried as some of the school trustees

would have led them to believe. I am pleased that they are becoming

more involved in the budgeting process of the local school districts.

I believe that it is important that we continue with some of the

major projects in the province that are producing jobs for our people.

I particularly refer to the hopeful extension of the ALRT to Surrey. I

am looking forward to the awarding of the Summer Games. The

Surrey-White Rock district has a very interesting submission that they

have put forward for 1986. I am hoping that we can see them awarded to

the municipalities of Surrey and White Rock.

When we look through our budget, we see there are cuts and transfers

of funds being made in various areas, but I believe it to be very

important that when we as a provincial government make those cuts we

are not cutting to save the provincial government money while at the

same time transferring that cost to the local municipalities. We have

seen a couple of cases that fall into that category in my constituency

which leave me with some concern. I think it is something that we are

going to have to look at a little more thoroughly.

I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to some of the legislative

changes that we will be dealing with later in this session. I am

particularly looking forward to the coming changes to the labour

legislation. I think that the situation we are faced with at the

present time to do with the pulp mills and the workers picketing the

IWA operations is really intolerable. I would suggest that it would be

beneficial to all the

[ Page 3488 ]

woodworkers if we had one union that handled all of the members in

the woodworking industry, rather than such a large number of unions

that go in on secondary picketing arguments. They're causing a great

deal of confrontation in the northern part of the province, and I don't

think that anyone is going to gain anything from that.

In closing, I would like to read from a letter that was sent in, and I think it sums it up very well:

"A young man in, his mid-thirties was in a comfortable

executive position making over $100,000 a year income. However, he

yearned for the moment to break away from this cushy position to test

his skills in the marketplace and to rise to the heights he believed he

could reach. Regretfully, burgeoning government bureaucracy and

unchecked public spending made him hesitate. You see, he studied the

economic history of Canada in relation to its past, present and future

trading partners and saw long ago the challenges we needed to face here

at home before we could compete in the changing world marketplace."

"However, the course he sees the present British

Columbia government taking coincides with the solutions he saw were

needed to create a new confidence in ourselves and in our future. Thus,

Mr. Premier" — this is a copy of a letter that went to the Premier —

"this young man, now confident not only in his own abilities but in the

ability of his government to provide proper leadership, resigned from

his cushy job to seek his dreams and higher goals."

Incidentally, it has worked out very well for him because of the

confidence he has in this government and in this province. I think it

reflects on the outcome of the election on May 5, and many people in

this province feel the same way.

At this time I take great pleasure in speaking against the amendment and for the budget.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's always a delight to follow the

member for Surrey. I would like to comment on some of the things that

she stated in her opening.

[4:30]

It's interesting the way the Social Crediters use statistics in

their speeches; they're careful not to use the actual statistics but

just kind of anecdotal references to what might once have been

statistics. She says that there are more people working now than there

were two years ago. Of course two years ago there were fewer people

working than at any time since the 1930s. So we have to make

comparisons based on the figures of now and then. I think we would find

that the employment situation in British Columbia when measured

objectively against any standard and against the improve ment in

employment in any of the provinces in Canada.... This government

has one of the most dismal records of job creation of any province in

Canada. In fact, the only place where this government can take any

credit is in the number of I 1 jobs it has purposefully destroyed by

firing people in government service, downsizing government operations,

privatizing operations and doing away with thousands upon thousands of

jobs. The employment situation in this province is worse than virtually

every other province in Canada and, in fact, many other states in the

United States.

She also said that the budget has been slightly reduced this year

over last year. Well, that is not saying very much, is it, Mr. Speaker?

How does the budget this year compare with the year before? Last year's

budget was an 18 percent increase over the previous budget — far ahead

of any other province in Canada. It's not the kind of budget that you

would call a restraint budget by any other name than an Orwellian

definition. The budget is slightly reduced this year but compared to

previous years, and when you average it over two years, it has a

substantial increase.

She talked about debt. Yes, this province is deep in debt — probably

deeper in debt per capita than any other government in Canada,

including the Canadian government. Instead of justifying the debt, she

simply said: "Well, what would the debt have been if any other

government were in office?" What a ridiculous statement! Of course it

would have been less, and more people would have been working, and

people would have been happier. Consumer confidence would have been

higher.

This party is concerned about the people who work in this province,

It's concerned about restoring our economy to its previous vibrancy.

It's not concerned with going around and cutting out universities,

cutting down school budgets and sacking people who have faithfully

served the people of this province for 25 and 30 years. This government

is conducting a reign of terror around British Columbia as no other

government in the past — a reign of terror that only leaders such as

Lenin could have conceived. This government has....

MR. KEMPF: You should know all about Lenin.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: I certainly do now after watching you in action.

I know all about a reign of terror. I know all about what Lenin would

have done had he been the government of this province. He certainly

would have been in government under Social Credit.

What an unbelievable use of statistics and comparisons — absolutely

ridiculous! I've never seen a political party like this — or a speaker

like that — stand up in the House and boast of the destruction they're

doing to our economy, the damage they're doing to our citizens, the

damage they're doing in undermining our economic and social

institutions. They're traitors. They ought to be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, some of the people in this budget debate have mentioned

the ombudsman's report. Since it's been mentioned before, I'm sure that

you'll give me a bit of leeway in allowing me to mention it now. I

think it shows a lack of courage on the part of some of our more

extreme right-wing Social Credit members for them to discuss the

ombudsman in the way they do and attack him personally for the simple

reason that he tabled a report which is critical of government

activities. That's the whole reason for the existence of the

ombudsman's office. It's the duty of the ombudsman. He doesn't do it

because he likes to do it. He does it because it's his duty to

represent citizens who run afoul of an insensitive administration. The

problem now with the ombudsman is that he has so many citizens running

into problems because this administration is so insensitive. It's

gutless of members to stand up in this House and criticize a person

personally and in his office who has no opportunity to respond to their

criticism and debate their criticism. We should be dealing with that

report before a committee of this House. We should have the opportunity

to question the ombudsman, to question his facts, to bring forward

papers and people and witnesses, to either confirm the facts that he's

presented or show that

[ Page 3489 ]

they're not true at all. But we have not been given that

opportunity, and the government seems to be in fear of giving us this

opportunity.

Why is that, Mr. Speaker? They're calling for the opposition to make

an apology for demanding the resignation of the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) for such an unbelievable administrative bungle,

which allowed $36 million of public funds to slip through his hands and

into the hands of private forest companies. Do you know, Mr. Speaker,

how much money that is, how much it represents in terms of job creation

in this province? Do you have any idea? I was talking to a group

representing David Thompson University Centre out on the steps a short

time ago, and some of them are in the gallery now. That university

campus takes roughly $3.5 million to $4 million a year to operate. The

money that the Minister of Forests has allowed to slip through his

fingers into the hands of big forest companies would have run that

campus for ten years. That's the kind of slipshod operation that that

Minister of Forests is running. That's only at six dry-land sorts

around the province. How many others? How much more money has the

minister allowed to slip through his fingers through incompetence,

through a failure to charge the forest companies, those huge resource

companies, the moneys that they should be paying for Crown timber that

they're using under licence from the province of British Columbia? How

many jobs have been lost as a result of that $36 million slipping

through the hands of that minister? And they are asking the opposition

to apologize to the Minister of Forests for bringing this matter to his

attention, or for demanding that it be dealt with, or for demanding

that the minister resign.

The ombudsman at least had the decency to admit that a part of his

report — a very small and insignificant part of his report — was

inaccurate in fact. He says on page 28 that "the Minister of Forests

asked one of my complainants to get the ombudsman out of the

investigation." He admitted that was wrong; he admitted he was wrong in

that one single fact in the investigation. Now the Socreds, in order to

divert the attention of the public from the real weight of this

document, from the real incompetence of the Minister of Forests, are

attacking the credibility of the ombudsman, attacking the credibility

of his office. They don't want the public to keep in their minds, at

the centre of their attention, this fact in the ombudsman's report:

that the action of the ministry — and the minister, therefore, since he

represents the ministry to this House — are not only contrary to the

spirit and intent of the Forest Act but also contradict any proposition

that the ministry might be managing the forests in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, no Minister of Forests has the right to remain in

office a minute longer than those charges remain on the table of this

House. The Minister of Forests should resign and should demand a

complete investigation into the allegation and charges made in the

ombudsman's report. Those allegations and charges should be the subject

of an investigation in public so that everybody is aware of the facts

behind those charges. Not another one of these investigations behind

the closed doors of the office of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith). Not another coverup. We don't need another one of those; we've

had a coverup on this issue for three years running. What we want are

the facts of the matter. We on this side of the House have no intention

of apologizing to anyone for demanding the resignation of that

minister. He has been shown in this matter, as well as in every other

matter within his jurisdiction, to be utterly and completely

incompetent to fulfill his role as Minister of Forests. I'm sorry he's

not in the House to listen to this. He is out on a junket, I understand.

In his own documents submitted to cabinet, it is suggested that the

restraint program of the provincial government has virtually destroyed

the effectiveness of the silvicultural programs of the province of B.C.

Let me quote some of the statements from that report, which was

submitted to cabinet on September 30, 1983.

Under "Effects of restraint on successive five-year programs: Major

implications of these restraint measures include a possible need for

annual allowable cut reductions to meet with lower productivity of the

forest land base." Mr. Speaker, you are aware what the results are of

annual allowable cut reductions in the forest industry. The lack of

replanting and silvicultural treatment means that this government is

going to have to cut back on the amount of timber available to forest

companies operating in this province. It means this government is going

to have to say to people working in the forest industry of British

Columbia that there will be fewer jobs available to British Columbia

citizens as a result of the application of this so-called restraint

program to silviculture and to replanting. It's going to mean fewer

jobs now, and fewer jobs for our children and their children, because

it's going to undermine, as the minister's own report to cabinet says,

the productivity of the forest land base.

According to that same cabinet document, the restraint program is

going to eliminate the funds required to support the currently approved

annual allowable cut and will require the dismantling of insect and

disease control programs. Dismantling insect and disease control

programs means that the work we've already done on replanting and

silviculture will be subject to attack by disease and insects; in fact,

we may be losing the money we've already spent on silviculture and

replanting. The damage that this minister is doing to the forest

economy of British Columbia is only beginning to be felt; it's going to

be felt for years and years.

Finally, the virtual elimination of range and recreation enhancement

programs. This was the minister who brought in the Forest Act in 1977

and 1978, who brought in the Pearse report and the discussion on the

Pearse report — the Royal Commission on Forest Resources. This was the

minister who brought down the Forest Act and the ten-year planning

provisions for range and resource management, for forest management.

This is the minister who brings down the five-year forest range and

resource program every year. This is the minister who talks to us with

such promise about the forest industry, and yet the secret documents

that he presents to cabinet behind closed doors tell us that the

forests of this province are in disastrous shape as a result of his

management of those forests, the government's financial programs and

the government's restraint programs.

On another page, talking about the effects of restraint on

successive five-year programs: "In general, growth built into and

approved under the initial five-year programs has not occurred. Indeed,

one year after publication of the second five-year program, the

implementation

schedule was set back for two years. One year later the

forecast and the resource base for the year 1983-84 were reduced

substantially. Growth in subsequent program years was put off

indefinitely." So the minister has not even kept his commitment to the

forest range and resource program of his own government. He has been

unable to obtain the finances required for his own ministry to keep

that program up; as a result, the program has fallen behind

harvesting, and is more subject to losses from disease

[ Page 3490 ]

and insects than ever before. The major implications of restraining

the five-year program to a no-growth

schedule are that productivity of

the provincial forest land base will be reduced and predicted wood

supply shortages will occur earlier and be more severe.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, what's provided to the citizens of British Columbia

with the release of this cabinet document is the warning that their

minister has not only abused his trust as the Minister of Forests but

that their potential for employment in the forest industry in the

future in this province is going to decline, that jobs in the forest

industry are going to decline and that there is insufficient commitment

by the minister and the government to keep the forest industry and the

forests of this province in good shape, as we would do if we were

proper stewards of the resource and did our duty as government, as a

Legislature and as ministers of the Crown. There is an obligation not

simply on the minister, Mr. Speaker, but on the government and the

members of this Legislature to call on that minister to resign and to

call on that government to change the program and to immediately commit

the money that's necessary to carry on the forests of this province.

We were told that the federal government was negotiating with the

provincial government on a five-year, long-term intensive silviculture

subagreement that would require a commitment of $104 million a year,

jointly shared by both governments. In other words, the B.C. government

would have to put up $52 million each year, and the federal government

was committed to $52 million each year over a five-year period. The

provincial government refused to become involved on that basis. As a

result, this year $10 million will be spent on intensive silviculture —

a drop in the bucket, less than 10 percent of what's required.

The sooner we replant our forests the better it will he for all of

us. The sooner we restock lands that haven't been sufficiently

restocked, and do that necessary backlog reforestation, the better it

is going to be for us and for our children. It is simply not being

done, and from the figures and information that we have, there appears

to be no commitment to it on the part of this government and this

minister. What are we to do, other than to call for his resignation?

His administration of the forests of this province over the last four

or five years has been utterly shameful, and he has no right to hold

his office for one minute longer. The minister is on a junket to Europe

or somewhere. He isn't even here in this House to answer the charges in

an extremely critical report tabled in the House criticizing his office

and his ministry. It is totally and absolutely irresponsible of that

minister. He should be here addressing and answering those charges, and

if he can't answer them, then he's got an obligation to the members of

this Legislature and the citizens of this province to resign his office

and quit. That's his responsibility.

We're talking about jobs when we're talking about silviculture and

reforestation. We're talking about the opportunities for employment for

our citizens who are working now and for citizens who might have the

opportunity to work in the future. What does the forest industry mean,

in terms of direct employment for the citizens of British Columbia? It

means there are something like 31,000 jobs directly in the forest

industry and double that in indirect terms — 62,000 jobs.

I'd like to read a page from a report that was done by the federal

Department of the Environment. Its discussion of the federal-provincial

agreement on intensive silviculture on page 38 of that reports says:

"Events at Ocean Falls pale to insignificance

comparative to the potential effects of the projected falldown on the

British Columbia economy, A one third decline in the timber supply from

current levels would multiply the Ocean Falls experience many times and

would have massive and pervasive effects throughout the British

Columbia economy.

"Based on current employment figures, such a

contraction would throw 31,000 British Columbians out of work in both

logging and wood-based manufacturing industries. Due to the central

importance of the forest industry to British Columbia, at least an

equivalent number of jobs would be lost in other sectors, including the

transportation industry, the capital repair and the construction

industry, the material and supply industry, and, most significantly,

the retail and personal service industry.

"The major effects would be largely localized in forest-dependent

communities, but every major settlement in British Columbia would be impacted."

Mr. Speaker, if this government was interested in exercising its mandate as

stewards of the forest, if it did ante up the $52 million it should be putting

up for the federal-provincial intensive silvicultural agreement, that agreement

could create total employment of approximately 200,000 person-years for complete

reforestation of all good and medium backlog sites throughout the province.

Yet the government has rejected it and has neglected to put up the money to

get involved in that federal-provincial agreement, and as a result that money

is going unspent. All we're going to get this year is an extension of the

previous agreement: something like $10 million. Yet the money is available.

The money would be available if the minister would simply develop the political

will and the guts necessary to go back under

section 87 of the Forest Act and

to require those companies which, through inaccuracies in the scaling system

approved by the Minister of Forests, gained illegally to the tune of something

like $36 million. If we brought that money back into the provincial treasury

and added to it money we have in the provincial treasury, we would be able to

enter into that federal-provincial agreement and we could be getting to work

today on that replanting of our NSR lands and the backlog replanting that's

required. Yet the minister is off on holidays on a junket somewhere in Europe

and isn't fulfilling his duties as minister. and those people over there

expect an apology for the demand that the Minister of Forests resign. What a

shameful request. They should themselves be demanding that the Minister of Forests

resign. He shouldn't have been in his office one minute longer than that

report was on the table in this House, than cabinet knew of the information

in that report on January 11, and than he knew of that report in the fall of

last year.