1986 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7579 ]

CONTENTS

Royal assent to bill –– 7579

Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1986 (No. 1) (Bill M203). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 7579

Budget Debate

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7579

Mr. Mitchell –– 7581

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 7584

Mr. Skelly –– 7586

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7589

Division –– 7591

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. Hon. Mr. Pelton

On vote 25: minister's office –– 7591

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1986

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts. There

will be a brief recess as we await his attendance in our chamber.

Following royal assent, hon. members, the House business will proceed

in the normal fashion.

The House took recess at 10:07 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:09 a.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 1), 1986.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE:

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to

this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a new secretary employed

in the Clerk's office, Joan Molsberry, who is in the House for the

first time.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1986 (No. 1)

MR. HOWARD: I move that

a bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1986 (No. 1),

be introduced and read a first time now, and in explanation thereof

advise the House that for years the legal authority of the Minister of

Forests under the Ministry of Forests Act, has been to assist and

encourage the large integrated forest companies — this to the detriment

of the small operator. My bill proposes to correct that emphasis and

give some legal foundation and legal authority to provide the small

operator in the logging and small milling business a fighting chance

and an opportunity to make a go of it.

The bill proposes to

amend the Ministry of Forests Act to include a

section which would say

that one of the purposes of the ministry, under the direction of the

minister, would be to encourage a vigorous and efficient small

enterprise timber harvesting and — processing industry in the province.

Right now the Ministry of Forests Act itself is void of any reference

encouraging loggers or timber harvesting and concentrates solely on the

question of large, world-scale, world-competitive timber-processing

industries.

I can't emphasize too strongly that an operator of a small business employs

more people per dollar of investment than does a large corporation, spends more

of its money locally, keeps employees working longer than a large corporation

does in tough times, and is generally more a part of the community.

Bill

M203, Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1986 (No –– 1),

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker,

it's a pleasure to rise in this budget debate. I've listened to a lot

of budget speeches — not as many, of course, as the hon. first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and some of the others here, but

quite a few — and I believe that this is one of the most positive

budgets, in fact the most positive budget, that I have ever heard.

The

signs of renewal in British Columbia are evident everywhere we look. In

my ministry, the registrar of companies keeps a running account of the

number of incorporations, new companies that are formed in British

Columbia. While this is not necessarily indicative of companies that

are in business, it's a sign of confidence, a sign of people getting

ready to do business; it's a sign of people doing business in the

province. It's a sign of people providing jobs for other folks and

making investments.

For the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that in 1983 there were 13,787 new incorporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: In '83?

HON. MR. VEITCH:

In 1983. In 1984 there were 14,052 incorporations. In the year 1985

there were 15,581 new incorporations — a positive sign of economic

renewal, a positive sign of confidence in this province and in this

government, in the way this government has been leading and in the way

this Premier has been leading this province. I understand, Mr. Speaker,

that this Legislature or any legislature — in fact, the parliamentary

system — is based on confrontation. There's the opposition and there's

the government. I understand that process and I respect the process,

but I honestly believe that in times of stress, in times when that

tenuous thread of renewal can be seen, it's important, especially in

this year 1986, to for once in a great while link arms for the good of

the country and for the good of the province, and pull together and

accentuate the positive in this great province of British Columbia.

[10:15]

believe it's time for the betterment of all British Columbians and the

betterment of those philosophies which we respectfully represent to

pull together. A great deal can and indeed must be accomplished through

consultation and cooperation. I believe this is the key to the future;

I believe it's the key to economic renewal and the key to real jobs for

our people in this province and in this country. It's time, rather than

continually accentuating the things that divide us, to reach out and

find those things in British Columbia which can pull us together.

this time of Expo I believe we must and we will develop a new consensus

in British Columbia which will carry us through not only the eighties,

but beyond and into the next century. It's important. A new consensus

can do more than anything else, in my mind, to reinvigorate our economy

and ensure we'll be able to afford a generous standard of social

[ Page 7580 ]

services and an improved quality of life for British Columbia. A new consensus is definitely required.

understand the process of confrontation of opposition in government,

but I have never found a time in my short lifetime when negative

thinking brought positive results. Positive thinking always begets

positive action. I honestly and sincerely believe that this is a

positive budget. You know, we've got to be salesmen and saleswomen for

British Columbia. We've got to quit going around the country and trying

to divide one end of the province from the other or one side from the

other. There's no time for that in this province, and in fact we're

doing a really great disservice to this province and to this country

and to our way of life when we....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well,

I'll forgive you if you'll quit it. I'll forgive you. I forgive you

before you ever started, because perhaps you don't know any better.

Especially

during this Expo year, we've got to pull together. We've got to put on

a positive face for the world, and we've got to keep it on during the

time that follows Expo, and we've got to move it through into the

1990s, because we can have all of the lumber in British Columbia, we

can have all of the coal in the mountains, we can have all of the

minerals — and this is something that the opposition doesn't seem to

understand through their philosophy.... You know, this is potentially

valuable, but it's absolutely useless until you take it somewhere and

sell it to someone and produce value with it. That's done through two

human ingredients: salesmanship and confidence, in that particular

order. That's the way it's done.

I remember recently trying to go to sleep, and I picked up a copy of Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities ,

and I remember his opening line. He said: "It was the best of times, it

was the worst of times." Now I know he was speaking at that time about

the French Revolution, but I honestly believe that the last few years

that we've experienced in this province and this country have been both

the worst of times and the best of times. They've been the worst of

times because the international recession has sapped the resources of

our industry; they've harmed us. They've been the worst of times

because families have had to suffer and because businesses have had to

suffer. They've been the best of times because they've caused us to

examine the way we have been doing things over the years.

We've

found that we're in a new economy, we're in a new beginning, and that

the worst of times.... From that bad circumstance ought to come a new

beginning and will come a new economy. I'm confident of that. Now we've

got to turn the lessons of the worst of times into opportunities.

Someone once said that if someone throws you a handful of lemons, what

do you do about it? Do you cry about it? Well, you make lemonade. You

do the very best you can with it.

We've learned a lesson.

You know, one of the worst things that can happen to a country, to a

jurisdiction, is to be consistently looking back for solutions into the

past. It doesn't mean that we throw away the wisdom of the ages. We

never do that; we build upon it. The worst thing that can happen to any

jurisdiction, to any people, is to be blinded by lack of forward

vision. If we consistently carp about the things that are wrong in this

country, that are wrong in this province, that message will spread out

to the world and will be poor salesmanship.

Marshall Field,

who was a great retail magnate in the United States, used to tell the

story about the last three feet. Marshall Field used to say that in an

economy, things don't usually break down from the mines out to the mill

or from the mill out to the factory or from the factory out to the

retailer or from the factory out to the wholesaler or from the

wholesaler out to the retailer. He said they break down in what he used

to call that last three feet. He said that's the distance across the

counter. That's where selling is done or it is not done, and that's

where confidence is imbued or it is not imbued.

It is no

different in this province, and it's certainly no different in this

country. We've got to be better salesmen for British Columbia. We've

got to be better salesmen for Canada. That's how we'll succeed. We're

not going to succeed by running around this province and dividing the

north from the south or the east from the west. That is

counterproductive, and not in the best interests of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, this budget message is vision coupled with faith. Faith is — and

always has been — the evidence of things not seen, and it takes people to translate

faith and vision into reality. It takes confidence; it takes a will. This government

has this will, this faith, and that is exemplified in this wonderful document

that the Minister of Finance has brought to the people of British Columbia:

faith in the potential of this country, in the potential of this province.

want to talk to you for a minute about potential in my own particular

riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. We've just recently completed the

wonderful SkyTrain opportunity. I'm not completely sure of what that

cost, but somewhere around the $900 million mark — somewhere in that

area as you take the thing through to its final conclusion. That

provided jobs, that provided one of the most innovative transportation

systems you will see anywhere in the world, and in fact we're selling

that.

We could have left it right there, but there are

people around who saw the potential that was going to bring. I know

that sometimes the word megaproject is taken to have a wrong meaning,

but Burnaby now has its own megaproject, and thanks to SkyTrain it's

called Metrotown. British Columbia's state-of-the-art SkyTrain is

turning Metrotown in Burnaby into a retail development boom. It is

attracting multimillion dollar developments and creating hundreds and

hundreds of jobs, Mr. Minister of Finance. You see, what they're doing

there is selling; it's that last three feet. They're turning potential

into opportunity into reality. Burnaby's Metrotown is one of the most

attractive merchandising areas in the whole of that wonderful lower

mainland. In fact, proposed developments — those under construction and

the completed developments — total more than one billion dollars, more

than the total cost of the SkyTrain development itself. That was

brought about as a direct spinoff of SkyTrain, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Metrotown is ideally located in the geographic heart — right in the

centre — of the lower mainland, with a population of 250,000 within a

three-mile radius. When the SkyTrain system opened in January,

Metrotown became just 15 minutes from downtown Vancouver.

recent months Metrotown has been attracting all sorts of development

proposals. Cal Investments Ltd. Is spending $100 million to link the

Sears store on Kingsway with the new Woodward's store and 200 other

retail outlets called Metrotown Centre. This development is scheduled

to open next August. Cambridge Shopping Centres Ltd. of Toronto is

awaiting the necessary local approvals, which I understand

[ Page

7581 ]

are forthcoming, for a $140 million development immediately west of Metrotown

Centre. Burnaby developer John Georgilas has a $100 million proposal currently

under review by Burnaby planners. His development includes a hotel, a library,

cinemas, a department store, 50 retail outlets, Save-On-Foods and another larger

store. All of this is on top of an estimated $250 million worth of Metrotown

work in the past four years, and another $450 million worth of commercial development

is planned. That is confidence. That is turning potential into opportunity into

jobs for British Columbia.

top of that, as a direct result of actions taken by the Social Credit

government of British Columbia, Polygon Properties completed a $22

million, 20-storey office tower in Kingsway last year called Metrotown

Place, which is now 57 percent leased. Tenants include the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, National Life and the B.C. Housing

Management Commission. The company plans to build another 10-storey

tower in Metrotown next year because of the demand. That's a perfect

sign of confidence and renewal in British Columbia, and that is

exemplified in the heart of the lower mainland, which is Burnaby.

There

are a lot of construction jobs and development. As big as this is....

Just think of the permanent jobs that will come — all those retail

stores, the hotels, the theatres and the office buildings will be

providing permanent employment for British Columbians.

Developers

have been interested in the Metrotown area for some time, but the

announcement of ALRT, or SkyTrain as it is now called, caused this

sleeping development giant to wake up in a very big way for the good of

British Columbia. It was the spinoff, the direct result of government

action, a direct result of SkyTrain. With the help of the provincial

government and working in cooperation with the municipal governments

and private enterprise, Burnaby is on the move, Vancouver is on the

move and British Columbia is on the move. Burnaby, I'm proud to say,

was the first municipal government in the province to sign the

provincial-municipal partnership agreement, and it is paying off in

large measure. We're on a roll in Burnaby, and it's going to get even

better in times to come.

There's no shortcut to obtaining

permanent jobs, either by handouts or make-work projects. The way to

create jobs, as we've pointed out here, is to provide catalysts for

investment, Mr. Minister of Finance, and that is what this budget is

all about. It's the gas and oil of the economy that makes things

happen. Those investments must take place in plant and in equipment and

most importantly in people, offering them the skills and training

they'll need in the new economy that's being built in British Columbia.

I'm happy to say that the program for excellence in post-secondary

education will accomplish just that in British Columbia. The young

people who are coming into the marketplace and taking their training

now, Mr. Speaker — and you've had some experience in this area — are

going to thank this government and this minister and these times for

many, many decades to come.

We've got a lot of things to do in this province. We've got to create

new wealth, we've got to create new investments. During the throne debate

I mentioned that my ministry would soon be going out to the people of British

Columbia and talking about new forms of investment and talking about how we

can better increase the investment and the investor potential in British Columbia.

We've got to have that investment. We are gaining that investment. Confidence

is here in this government and in this budget and I believe that that is a major

step along the way.

[10:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We're seeing now and we're

feeling the benefits of our past efforts, and this budget provides new

measures that will bring excellent growth in the coming years. In fact,

economic growth in 1986 is expected to be the highest in five years.

The reason is that growth in the economies of the U.S., Japan and

western Europe will increase the demand for our expertise and for our

products, providing we have the opportunities, the vehicle and the

proper investment climate and providing we treat that great opportunity

that we have, Expo, properly and use that to its fullest potential to

turn that potential into opportunities. That's what it's all about.

There

are key indicators, as I mentioned to you before retail sales, housing

starts, manufacturing shipments — that show established upward trends.

There's no question about that. Our government's actions over the past

few years to strengthen the long-term competitiveness of our producers

are having a significant positive effect for British Columbians now.

These were the worst of times, these were the best of times. We've

turned adversity into opportunity. I have faith in British Columbia; I

have faith in this government; I have faith in this budget; I have

faith in this Minister of Finance; and I'm very proud to be a British

Columbian.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I do have some

prepared notes, but I can't help but reply to the last speaker. Maybe I

should kind of run back over history just to bring him up to date. I

know he had a short break in his political career in this House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not as long as yours.

MR. MITCHELL: No, not as long as mine.

You

know. he talks about confrontation and that we've got to have

cooperation, as if he's trying to bring in something new. This

Legislature — the British parliamentary system that we know of and that

we work within — was set up to do just that. Not only does it have a

legislature, but it has parliamentary committees, and these

parliamentary committees are not something that were invented by the

NDP; they are something that were laid down years and years ago. But

it's the Social Credit government that has stopped their utilization

for getting the members from all parties to sit down and work together

and to go out and talk to the experts, to the community and to the

people who have ideas. And it's this Social Credit government, started

by the previous Social Credit government back in 1953-54 and from then

on, that has taken the parliamentary system that we believe in — that

we talk about — and reduced it to nothing. For a minister of the Crown

to get up when we, for the seven years that I've been here and before I

got here, have been asking the government to get away from their

dictatorial cabinet domination of the parliament and to listen to what

the people of British Columbia are saying, to get some input from all

sections of the community instead of doing all the big mistakes....

They feel that if there is a problem, you throw money at it. That is

the last thing you need to do. You need to use your economic wealth in

a proper, direct and constructive manner.

I listened to him talk about all the new shopping centres in Burnaby. I think he should sit down and talk to the member

[ Page 7582 ]

for

Nanaimo, where they have overcapitalized with shopping centres. Who

does it affect? It affects the small businessman who is already

established in Nanaimo.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We shouldn't have growth: is that what you're saying'?

MR. MITCHELL:

No, I say there should be proper growth. There should be constructive

growth, and this is what economic planning and common sense would give

us.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: We have

all kinds of growth. You have the growth that the previous speaker was

talking about, a growth in shopping centres. We have a growth in coal

production. We have a growth in coal production when we opened up the

northeast coal, a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. But at the same

time they are cutting back employment in southeast coal. That billion

dollars — we need investment, but we don't have to go out and keep on

doubling up on facilities that we already have. The public know this;

the economists know this; the people who were planning northeast coal

knew this.

This is why this House and the NDP have been

pleading for cooperation: because it's the little worker who gets

trampled on and loses his house, loses his investment in the southeast

coal because he is following the myth that throwing a lot of money in

this end and throwing some more money in the other end will solve the

problem. It never solves the problem.

I have to concede

that it looks good on your Social Credit TV ads that are paid for by

the taxpayers. You keep on selling these lies, lies, lies that we have

a balanced budget. We have all these simple answers, but they're not

true. You know it is not true. You remind me of an errant husband who

is coming back to his wife and pleading for forgiveness. That's what

you are doing. You're asking for the cooperation that this side of the

House has been pleading for for the benefit of the people of British

Columbia.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it's too bad the public do

not believe you any longer. You can ask for cooperation now, and we

know that if the unfortunate thing ever happened that this government

was re-elected, then you would still go back to your cabinet-dominated

Legislature and you would still stand up like the rest of the people

do. They know that some of these budgets are wrong. They know they are

false, but they'll stand up, and they'll go through the charade of

saying: "Oh, it's the best budget we've ever seen."

Let's

go back over some of the budgets. Let's go over forestry. In 1980 the

Minister of Finance promised to the people of British Columbia that the

forest industry needed to be restructured, that it needed to be

replanted; we had to get into the silvicultural industry. In 1980 they

talked about $147 million, and then in 1981 they talked about $120

million. We were going to have a five-year plan that was going to put

$1.4 billion into forestry. And the people believed them.

There

was a start. We had what was called EBAP, a program that topped up

unemployment insurance, and it had unemployed people out working doing

thinning in the forest, renewing the fire-roads, renewing the drainage,

protecting and tending the forest. It was a good program. It was a

beginning. It was something that should have been brought into

operation in 1949 when British Columbia passed legislation setting up

sustained yield in the forest industry of British Columbia. But it was

never in operation completely. They had pilot programs here and

programs somewhere else, but basically the forest industries of British

Columbia went in, they creamed our forest and moved on. Even now we're

only planting about 25 percent of the backlog left by companies in the

past.

I don't blame the companies. I blame the years and

years of Social Credit government that did not enforce the laws of the

province and did not look after the resources that they were entrusted

to look after. It all disappeared, all that program. What happened in

1983? Before the election they were talking all over the province about

how they were into silviculture, how they were looking after our

forests. I know that in my own riding Social Credit went through to the

crews working on EBAP and said: "Don't vote for the NDP, because they

will abolish EBAP." Who abolished EBAP, Mr. Speaker? The first month

after we came back into this Legislature, Social Credit abolished EBAP.

They abolished the protection that they were giving to provide

compensation and some of the fringe benefits. They abolished their

participation in a program that they had campaigned on, saying they

were going to do something for forestry.

Now we come back

with $20 million. We've gone from $1.4 billion down to $20 million.

They're also saying that the companies are going to put in $20 million,

and that the federal government and the unions are going to put in

money. But they have yet to go out and consult with the people they've

said in the budget are going to participate. The Minister of Finance

gets up with a budget that represents the government of British

Columbia, and indirectly the thinking of this Legislature, and he

hasn't consulted with the people he says — in the budget — are going to

put money into it.

The public of British Columbia no longer

believe and have faith in the statements that come out of this House.

Indirectly, when they have that lack of faith, it rubs off on us. Do

you remember, Mr. Speaker, the night we stayed right over until

morning? We talked about jobs — jobs needed right now. I believe that

19 positive job creation programs came from this side of the

Legislature. That was the cooperation we were offering, and never once

were any of these programs put into shape. The public is getting fed up

with promises and promises, and then a complete lack of any remorse

when they are completely forgotten.

[10:45]

have one in my own riding. You might not think it's important for your

riding, but it was a promise made nearly every year after I came in in

discussing a certain purchase with the Provincial Secretary — the

purchase by the provincial government from the CNR of the CNR

right-of-way. This was an idea that started in 1975, when the CNR

decided to shut down the railway that ran from Victoria to Deerholme up

in the Cowichan Lake area. They offered that right-of-way to the

provincial government. At that time Jim Lorimer was the minister of

municipalities, and he studied it and said on behalf of the province:

"Yes, we should purchase this right-of-way. We should use it for future

light rapid transportation. In the meantime we can purchase it and use

it as a recreation corridor, because it ties up Saanich, Victoria, View

Royal, Colwood, Sooke" — right up into the northern part of my area.

When Social Credit came to power they supported that idea. Each year when we were in the Provincial Secretary's

[ Page 7583 ]

estimates,

I would get up and talk to the Provincial Secretary and I'd say: "How

are the negotiations going?" Every year he would assure this House that

they were working on purchase of this right-of-way — and it was going

to be used by the people. Eventually the province spent $1.5 million

and purchased this right-of-way. But over the years that this was under

negotiation, the CRD had made plans to incorporate that particular

right-of-way into the parks system. Organizations within the community

— the greenbelt and trails committee — made studies, and the integral

parts of all their trail systems that run from Swartz Bay out to Port

Renfrew and up into Cowichan Lake were designed around the acquisition

by the province of the CNR right-of-way. Some beautiful literature was

put out. A lot of thought by the community has gone into utilizing this

resource. This resource was not the property of the province; it wasn't

the property of the CNR. It was the property of the people of this

province. What happened? It was purchased, flipped from, I take it, the

Provincial Secretary or Lands, Parks and Housing to the Highways and

Transportation ministry.

What was the first thing they did?

This is something where the whole community had been working to make a

recreation corridor. The first thing they did was go out and tear down

all the trestles. I don't mean the big ones that someone may jump off,

or anything else, but the small trestles that made up the continuity of

this particular right-of-way, this natural recreation corridor. As you

know, Mr. Speaker, a rail right-of-way has a nice even grade. All the

trestles were in. Sure, some of them needed some repair, but they went

in and tore them all down. Then at the same time, when the Capital

Regional District had agreed to take over all liabilities on that

particular piece of property, to lay out and incorporate it into the

park system, the trail system, this government went out and gave leases

to individuals throughout the Metchosin, Colwood and Sooke areas. They

literally chopped it into pieces. They gave leases out.... I don't say

to their political friends, but I know, Mr. Speaker, that if you had

the power to go in and check some of the political memberships, you

would be surprised who got them. Some of them were legitimate. Some of

the leases where they had rights-of-way into their property, or leases

for water lines, were justifiable, but some of them were very

questionable.

This is the part that shocked my whole

Western Community. The people out there cannot trust this government;

they cannot believe them. It's absolutely shocking, the disrespect that

a government has among the people. They say one thing time after time.

They promise the people that they're going to use the CN as a

right-of-way, and then they turn around and destroy a lot of the

investment, the trestles. They never consulted with anybody. They went

in and tore out the trestles, and instead of one long potential trail,

they chopped it up into little pieces. And you wonder why people who

were strong Social Crediters are phoning me and saying: "What happened

to that particular group?"

MRS. JOHNSTON: What a bunch of baloney!

MR. MITCHELL: That is not. You'd better go out and talk to your Social Credit group.

The

group they really hit is a group I've been working with — not for any

particular political reasons, but because I believe a certain thing

should have happened. In British Columbia, $185 million goes into what

is commonly called the horse community — people who keep horses for

riding and recreation. Out in my own community we have a lot of people

who keep horses. We had the tragic situation where, because of children

riding these horses on the roads and the danger.... One was killed, and

one, because of a horse being spooked by a car, ended up a

quadriplegic. Because I have worked with the families on the health

end, I understand the danger of having horses on the road, and as an

ex-policeman I know something about traffic. I spoke to many of these

groups and said: "We have the CNR right-of-way. It has been abandoned.

Get your groups, your horses, up on that right-of-way where it's safe,

and you're not going to have any problems."

Over the last

seven years, parts of that CNR right-of-way have become a bridle path

that connects all the way from Saanich right through to Sooke. It was

common sense. It didn't cost me anything to suggest that they trespass

on the CNR. It was a commonsense procedure. I know in my own heart that

because those horses were moved off the highways, some child today is

alive, or not a cripple. Maybe this House will say: "Oh, no. It

wouldn't have happened." But I know it would have, because I have seen

horses on roads; I have seen highways.

This was one of the

ideas that everyone believed in. I used to say that the Provincial

Secretary assured me in the House.... I sent out what he said in the

House, in Hansard . Groups

like the Greenbelt Society met with people in the ministry. Everyone

had one idea of what was going to happen to that right-of-way. But it

didn't. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people out there who are

disappointed with their own party, Social Credit. They were

disappointed because the promises made to their MLA and by ministry

staff to their workers, their committee members, were not kept. They

are shocked that a ministry trusted to negotiate a deal with the CNR,

to preserve the assets that they spent $1.5 million on, would go out

and systematically destroy some of those trestles — they literally

destroyed them — without any consultation at any time with the people

they were negotiating with or the community. Today there are areas

where they have fenced across that, because they have given out leases.

People feel that if they've got a lease from the government — and I

don't care if they're paying a dollar or a hundred dollars an acre —

they've got the right to fence it off, and they are fencing it off. Do

you think, Mr. Speaker, that the people who were involved in that trust

this government?

When I heard that last speaker say, "We've

got to have cooperation. We've got to talk to people...." We've been

saying that. We've got to sit down and talk to people. We can't

continue to use the dictatorial power that this cabinet has taken on

itself, and continually roll over the people of this province and the

solid, constructive suggestions that come from this Legislature, from

the official opposition, and then expect the public to believe it.

I said earlier on, the MLAs from Vancouver Island have talked

continually about the need for some long-term, thoughtful development

of our highway system on Vancouver Island. A good highway system in my

riding is of no value if it is not continued to Cowichan-Malahat,

Nanaimo, Comox, Port Alberni, to the North Island. We have to look at

the whole of Vancouver Island. Every one of us has pleaded with this

government to widen this highway. As I have said in Highways estimates,

the only time we get any money in my riding is a month before an

election. During the last election they dropped $2 million that the

poor old Highways ministry

[ Page 7584 ]

were

scrambling around trying to spend. You have to have some long-range

development of Vancouver Island. The area that runs through my riding,

through View Royal and Langford, has to be four-laned. This is a main

highway; it's the size of a feeder line.

In 1952, when Mr.

Gaglardi first put that road through, it was a lot better than the

highway that was in place at that time. It was a straight highway; it

bypassed the communities of View Royal, Colwood and Langford. It did

what it was supposed to do. It was part of the highway program. But

over the years traffic has built up, and it has to be widened. The only

widening that happened was when the NDP were in, and they put into

operation the plan of widening it from Douglas Street out to the Thetis

Lake crossing. That's all that has ever happened. Because that was in

the works, the Social Credit government did continue it — all the plans

— and the money was allocated. I give them credit for that; they did

carry out that part. But what happened? That was the end of it.

we're going to have any highways development for the province....

Vancouver Island is part of the province. There has to be an equal

share of the revenues that come out of this province. Vancouver Island

— what do they get? It's like $14 per capita for highway construction,

with the rest of the province getting in the hundreds of dollars — not

taking into account the major Coquihalla Highway or the Annacis bridge,

but when they get into...the general highway development Vancouver

Island has been going without. As we on this side of the House have

been saying time after time, we are not getting our fair share. Now the

Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities have got on our

bandwagon too. They know that what we have been saying is right and

what this government has been doing has been wrong.

[11:00]

The

public do not believe them. I quite believe we'll have programs that

will promise highways from Esquimalt right through to Port McNeill, but

I'm saying again this government lacks the innovative ideas that are

going to create jobs. They lack the foresight. They just run from one

election to another; they are not looking ahead. I know one issue that

I raised here for the CNR that could have been — with some thought from

the parks branch, from the highways branch, from Labour — a job

creation program that would have had people working so the public gets

some return from money they are putting out on UIC, some return that is

going out to keep people on welfare doing nothing.

There

have to be some innovative ideas. There has to be some thought, and

there has to be some compassion for those who are paying taxes and for

those who, through no fault of their own, are out of work, haven't had

the opportunity of training and haven't had the opportunity of

participating in and building British Columbia into a strong, viable

human place, and who are getting very cynical about the attitude and

the propaganda they see on TV day after day.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

They

know it's taxpayers' money. They know that they are wasting the

taxpayers' money for their own selfish political policies. They know,

and they don't believe you, Mr. Speaker. Pardon me — not you, Mr.

Speaker; they don't believe the government that is misusing their

resources, that is misusing their funds, that is misusing their future.

I say in closing we must have the cooperation that the previous speaker

mentioned, but it has to be honest cooperation.

HON. MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity, if I may, to welcome

all of the young people who are in the gallery today, and I am sure

they really enjoyed that very thought-provoking speech of the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I am pleased to take my place in this

budget debate because I see it as a continuation of the policies of

economic development and activity that have brought British Columbia,

over the course of the past 30 years of Social Credit governments in

British Columbia, to great prosperity and great opportunities on the

part of all British Columbians.

If I can, we can go back in

history a little ways. Thirty years ago the people of the interior of

British Columbia would always say that they were "beyond hope, "

because there was no highway expansion into the interior of British

Columbia, and there was little opportunity for industry in the interior

to get their products to market, whether it was coal, copper, lead,

zinc, pulp or indeed other commodities. It was extremely difficult for

us in the interior of British Columbia to be able to move those goods

and services from the interior to export markets.

We should

know that natural resource development has been the backbone of many

interior communities in British Columbia over the course of that 20

years, because of sound fiscal policies on the part of successive

Social Credit governments for a period of 30 years in British Columbia.

When industry would go out and find a new mineral that was in demand in

the world, they would go out and find a market for that product. They

would come to government and sit down with government, and government

would over the course of those discussions provide the normal services

to those communities where that industry was going to be located, such

as roads, hospitals, schools, rail facilities — whether it was

provincial or work with national railways to get them developed —

ports, harbours and so on.

That is what has led to the

development of British Columbia as a large land mass "beyond hope," if

you will, and so I took as a member for the East Kootenays at the

interior of British Columbia as being on the right side of Hope in

1986. Over the course of debate on the budget and, indeed, the throne

speech, we heard an awful lot about resource development in British

Columbia. We talked an awful lot about the development, particularly,

of our natural resources, such as copper, lead, zinc, coal, lumber and

so on.

If we followed through with what I said earlier on,

what happens in the international marketplace is that the customer

decides who they want to buy their product from. Once that decision is

made, regardless of where that industry is located in British Columbia,

our government has generally responded positively to the needs and

aspirations of the communities and that particular resource

development, whether it has been in Granisle, Logan Lake, Elkford or

Tumbler Ridge.

Over the course of the debate there was a

lot of debate about coal production, and the debate centred around coal

production only in British Columbia, as though we were the only

province or location in the world that is involved in the processing,

extraction and marketing of coal. For the members' information, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to point out that there is a lot of coal production

taking place in the states of New South Wales and Queensland in

Australia, in South Africa, in the United States, in Russia and in many

other countries throughout the world. All of those companies located in

those countries are competing with natural resource development

companies in British Columbia.

[ Page 7585 ]

want to say that over the course of the past few years industry in

British Columbia, particularly those companies that have been involved

in the extraction, processing and marketing of coal, even through the

difficult times that we have been through, have done an exceptionally

good job of marketing their resources on behalf of the people, working

with their employees to reduce costs. For example, Mr. Speaker, British

Columbia in 1980 exported 10.2 million tonnes of coal. In 1981 we

exported 11.7 million tonnes of coal, in 1982 some 11.8 million tonnes,

in 1983 some 11.5 million tonnes, and in 1984 we exported 15.3 million

tonnes. So I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to

congratulate all of those resource companies involved in the marketing

of coal, and I would like at the same time to congratulate the

employees of those companies who have recognized the difficult times

that their employers are in in this very difficult and competitive

world economy in maintaining markets for existing contracts; and yes,

for going out and finding markets for new contracts. In fact they've

been able to double the export of coal from British Columbia over the

course of the past few years. They're to be congratulated for that,

along with the government of British Columbia, because the government

has generally responded too, over the course of the past few years, in

recognizing the difficulty that all of our industry is in — small

business and large — in their efforts to reduce taxation and costs on

the people. The Minister of Finance in particular should be

congratulated for the fine job he has done in that area, along with all

of the people in British Columbia who recognize the difficult times

we're in and are willing to take less during these difficult economic

times.

The members, too, would say: "Well, coal is coal and that's really

all that matters." For the members' information, Mr. Speaker, there

are two types of coal that we move in abundance. Industry moves from British

Columbia approximately 4.1 million tonnes of thermal coal a year. They've

been very successful over the course of the past few years in exporting that

coal. However, they've come under extremely tough competition, particularly

in the last two years — competition from other sources of energy such as nuclear

energy in Ontario and other places throughout the world, hydroelectric plants

in Canada and in other areas of the world, particularly from the events over

the last few months which have seen the reduction in the cost of crude oil with

forecasts showing that it will go down to approximately U.S. $10 a barrel; and

the lower Australian dollar value and South African dollar value has placed

an extremely difficult pressure on thermal coal production and exports from

British Columbia. We all know, too, Mr. Speaker, that 70 percent of the world's

hydrocarbon energies are in the form of coal, so in the long run coal without

question will have a major role to play in future energy sources. Programs that

are convenient today to allow steel-producers or energy utility companies to

move or convert from coal to oil will be short-lived, but in the meantime it

is putting extremely heavy pressure on thermal coal production in British Columbia

and indeed throughout the world. If this pressure continues up to the end of

the 1990s, we could see a reduction in thermal coal production throughout the

world in the amount of approximately 25 percent. Indeed, if it should continue

to the end of the 1990s — which is unexpected, but if it does — we could see

reductions in thermal coal production in world capacity in the amount of 50

percent. So it is extremely difficult in the area of thermal coal production,

and it does effect one area of British Columbia in particular, southeastern

British Columbia, because they are the largest producers of thermal coal for

world markets.

Metallurgical

coal, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, has without question a very

prosperous future for British Columbians in particular. As I said

earlier on, British Columbia companies have done exceptionally well in

the export of thermal coal. Companies have secured markets for

metallurgical coal in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, France, Belgium,

Denmark, Sweden, Hong Kong and other consuming countries of thermal

coal, those countries involved in the manufacturing of steel. We have

exported from British Columbia approximately 15.3 million tonnes of

metallurgical coal to those countries.

[11:15]

But

that's small if you look at the the opportunities that are available

for British Columbia companies to increase their potential for world

exports in the area of metallurgical coal. For example, the potential

in Korea is 7,400,000 tonnes of coal, and if you look at what we export

at the present time, it is small in comparison: we export approximately

1.6 million tonnes of coal to Korea. So the potential there is

tremendous for British Columbia companies. Brazil too has a potential

of metallurgical coal prospects for British Columbia companies in the

amount of ten million tonnes of coal. Again, we only export to Brazil

at the present time short of a million tonnes of coal. Taiwan is

another opportunity for British Columbia companies, where the potential

is three million tonnes of coal a year and we only export to Taiwan

approximately 0.6 million tonnes of coal.

So you see, the

potential for coal development and expansion of our industry in British

Columbia is tremendous. What we've got to do as a government is

continue what we've been doing over the course of the past few years,

and continue our policy of tax reduction on industry in general in

British Columbia. I know that if we continue that policy, in the long

run we will be able to expand economic development opportunities

throughout all of British Columbia. In particular, we will be able to

expand our share of the world market for metallurgical coal over the

course of the next few years by continuing on the policies that have

been established by the Minister of Finance and the government of

British Columbia.

But how do we succeed in this process?

The members of the opposition would say that the way to succeed and

even to maintain our presence in those markets is to build a wall

around British Columbia, as though we were the only province in the

world that was marketing coal and indeed as though the only companies

in the world that were involved in the marketing, extraction and

processing of coal were located in British Columbia, or to close our

eyes to the real difficulty that all of us face in British Columbia as

a result of tremendous pressures brought on by reduced Australian

currency, reduced South African currency, reduced oil prices and

pressures from other areas.

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief

that industry in British Columbia has succeeded over the course of the

past few years because they have developed a very aggressive marketing

policy for the goods and services that are exported from British

Columbia. And yes, in spite of the very difficult economic times that

we find ourselves in in British Columbia, and the tough competitive

position that those companies find themselves in, particularly in the

area of coal, they have been able to go out and double their exports

from British Columbia increasing employment opportunities, in fact

[ Page 7586 ]

doubling

employment opportunities over the course of the past few years for

British Columbians. They're to be congratulated for doing that.

This

budget continues to address the structural problems of our economy,

continues to focus in on tax reduction, and while our provincial

government has done its job and will continue to do its job, it is not

just up to the government of British Columbia. Municipal governments

too have a responsibility to continue their efforts of reduced taxation

on industry and business in their communities, because quite clearly

for every time you increase the mill rate in a municipality like

Sparwood where it is $30 on the local property tax increase in that one

mill rate, it is $100,000 at the mine head. That translates into the

jobs of two employees at the Balmer Mine, and that is something that

British Columbians cannot afford to continue to do these days.

municipalities too, along with other groups and organizations

throughout the province, will be encouraged to evaluate their needs

versus their wants. If there is a genuine need, such as in the area of

health care, education and human resources programs, employment

opportunities for our people, then this government of British Columbia

will respond, in partnership with other organizations throughout the

province, to address those needs. Those needs again, Mr. Speaker, are

health, education, human resource programs and employment opportunities

for our people.

That is the course that our government has

set for many, many years, Mr. Speaker, and particularly over the course

of the past few. Municipal governments have to join in that

partnership, and most of them have throughout British Columbia. But

it's not just good enough to join in that partnership on paper alone;

it has got to be joined in their deeds. I would encourage municipal

governments to continue to reduce their costs, to continue to reduce

costs on our health care facilities, to continue to reduce costs on our

hydro operations, on our workers' compensation.

And yes,

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to see in His Honour's throne

speech, and indeed the budget too, opportunities for the Ministry of

Labour again to enter into a partnership program with industry and

unions in British Columbia through the development of a preventive

mediation program. The development of a preventive mediation program,

in my opinion, will help industry and unions change attitudes with

respect to their role in economic development and their role in the

workplace.

I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that over the

course of the past year I have visited many sites across British

Columbia, particularly industrial sites, and I have indeed been

impressed with the level of cooperation that exists between employers

and employees sitting down and working together, talking about issues

that many years ago I would have thought would be very, very difficult

for them to resolve. But in 1985 and 1986 there is a new realization on

the part of both that they've got to work together, that they've got to

survive together, and that if they're going to succeed as partners, yes

in enterprise, they have to recognize and work out their differences,

and help each other secure markets for the products, goods and services

that we sell in British Columbia.

The Leader of the

Opposition and the opposition party have talked about the need for

cooperation, the need for consultation and the need to encourage people

to work together. Yet all I have heard over the course of this budget

debate, and indeed over the course of His Honour's throne speech, is

putting northeastern British Columbia against southeastern British

Columbia, putting the coast of British Columbia against the interior of

British Columbia, putting one group against the other. Quite frankly,

Mr. Speaker, they have called the young people of British Columbia the

"lost generation of British Columbia."

I want to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that over the course of the past year I have visited with

many young, outstanding British Columbians. I have visited on the shop

floor with industry and unions across B.C., and I want to tell you that

there is a level of realization on the part of all of those groups,

clubs and organizations in our province that if we're going to succeed

as partners, if we're going to continue to make British Columbia a

great place in which to live and to continue the high standard of

living that has been developed in British Columbia over the course of

the past 30 years, we have to work together to succeed. All of the

programs and policies of our government have been designed to assist

those parties — not to do it for them, as the Leader of the Opposition

would want us to do, but to assist those parties — in reaching

resolutions to their difficulties, in working out their problems, and

assisting them in solving their problems to meet the very tough

international marketplace. In spite of all of the difficult times that

we've been through — I've been in Canada 20 years this month; I came

from another country 20 years ago — tough times for us in British

Columbia means doing without what my mom and dad never really dreamed

of having. When you look at other areas throughout the world, where

one-third of the world is rocked by revolution, hunger, poverty,

disease, the other one-third is starving to death, while in British

Columbia and Canada we live better than 99 percent of all of the people

in the world, we have an awful lot to be thankful for in this province.

I would commend all hon. members to look around them — that's not

Fantasy Island when you look on television and see people starving to

death in other areas of the world. We have to look at what is happening

throughout the world and recognize that we in British Columbia and in

Canada have an awful lot, in 1986, to be grateful for.

Expo

86 will assist resource companies and unions in British Columbia to

meet their customers here. It will provide an opportunity for us to

bring those people to British Columbia who will buy the goods and

services of the people of our province. It will give us an opportunity

to take those people into the regions of British Columbia to show them

that we can work together, that we can solve our problems and get the

product that they want to buy to market, and that we can compete with

any competitor in terms of price, reliability, supply, service and

product.

I'm confident, Mr. Speaker, that when British

Columbians know what the challenge is that lies ahead, they will be

prepared to meet that challenge. This budget will assist them in many

ways. I'm standing in support of the budget, and I would encourage all

hon. members to support this budget who believe in partnership,

cooperation, consultation and participation on the part of all groups,

clubs and organizations in the development of a sound, prosperous

economic British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Labour wound up his speech by saying that he would

encourage all groups, clubs and organizations to support this budget. I

was just wondering if that was the speech that he had prepared for the

Legislature, or if it was prepared for somebody else.

I'd like to talk a little bit about progress today. I just want to hark back to the speech that was made by the Minister of

[ Page 7587 ]

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) when he stood up in the House. He quoted the first line from A Tale of Two Cities ,

and I think he was actually quoting Dale Parker from the Bank of

British Columbia, who had cited that quote at the meeting of the CGAs

at the Empress Hotel a few days ago. Mr. Parker, who I believe had

actually read the book, quoted the first two lines which say: "This is

the best of times and the worst of times."

Mr. Parker, I

think, did give a balanced view of the British Columbia economy. He

indicated that there are some difficulties in the economy, and he

talked about having 45,000 fewer people working today than were working

back in 1981, before the recession hit. He also talked about the

problem of net out-migration from the province. I tend to trust Mr.

Parker's figures, because he talked about a net number of people

leaving the province in the last year, people who are looking for

opportunities elsewhere in Canada.

If we are going to make

this province a better place — and all of us in this building, of

course, want to make it a better place — it requires an understanding

of what's happening in B.C. It requires an understanding of the good

things that are happening, but it also requires a recognition of the

bad things that are happening in this province. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker,

how could we make them better?

It does require an

understanding of the problems. Our concern in the throne speech as well

as in the budget speech is that this government seems to lack an

understanding of what's happening with ordinary British Columbians.

They seem to misunderstand or not to know what's happening to ordinary

working people out there, what kind of problems they're experiencing

from day to day. In order to do something about those problems, Mr.

Speaker, you have to have that basic understanding.

This

government also does not seem to be above doctoring the figures in

order to make things seem much better than they are. And that's a

concern that we have: that this government simply cannot be trusted in

the way they present the economy to the people. I want to give you an

example from that minister's speech. He talked about the number of

business incorporations in British Columbia in '85 over '84: some

14,052 in 1984; in 1985, 15,639. Let's check our figures. I'm reading

from the economic indicators out of the budget speech. I'm sure the

minister himself is reading out of the budget speech economic

indicators.

But where do we stand with respect to business

incorporations over the past five years? How do we compare now to where

we were before the recession hit this province? Let's take a look at

that, because I think people in the business community want to

understand how far this province has come and how far it yet has to go

before it reaches the level it was at back in 1981. The number of

business incorporations in 1981 was 23,368. There were 8,000 fewer

business incorporations in this province last year over the year before

the recession hit this province. We've got a long way to go before we

catch up to where we were in 1981.

[11:30]

I'll tell you how far this

government has put business back in the province of B.C. as a result of

their economic policies. The number of business incorporations in 1978

was 15,215. As a result of their policy, we've now reached the level we

were at in 1978. Mr. Parker, the executive at the Bank of British

Columbia who spoke and used the line about the best of times and the

worst of times, was looking at the performance of this government to

date. In my opinion, the performance of this government has been found

wanting. When business incorporations in this province drop from 23,000

in 1981 to just over 15,000 this year, we've achieved the level we were

at back in 1978, an absolutely shameful performance on the part of this

government.

Anybody who wants to improve the situation in

British Columbia requires an understanding of the good things that are

happening in this province, but also certainly requires an

understanding of the problems that this province is experiencing. As

far as we're concerned, and as far as the vast majority of people in

British Columbia are concerned, this government simply doesn't seem to

understand what's going on in those communities around the province and

with ordinary working people.

I walk around communities

throughout B.C., and what I hear and relay back to this Legislature is

a concern about business in those communities. It's pretty shocking

when you walk down the main street in Kimberley, British Columbia and

see buildings and storefronts shut down. It's a community that's very

enthusiastic about the possibilities for the future, yet when you drive

into Kimberley you see the Hydro building shut down and up for sale.

How are the other businesses in communities in the east Kootenays going

to take that? Is it a cue for them, that Hydro shuts down its building

in Kimberley, centralizes its operations elsewhere and leaves Kimberley

as a commercial backwater? The same thing is happening in my community

of Port Alberni; the same thing is happening in communities all over

the province as a result of this government's mismanagement of the

economy. Businesses are shutting down and new businesses aren't

incorporating at the rate they were between 1975 and 1981. This

government has failed to reach the level of economic activity prevalent

in this province eight years ago.

Business bankruptcies. I don't know if the minister mentioned business bankruptcies, but if the minister would care to look....

AN HON. MEMBER: He said they were down.

MR. SKELLY: If the minister would care to make a comparison....

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd rather talk about new businesses.

MR. SKELLY:

He'd rather talk about the 8,000 fewer new business incorporations

compared to 1981. If we're going to look at conditions for business

people in British Columbia, we have to look at all sides of the

picture. Certainly any responsible business person seeking to set up a

new business in this province is going to look at all sides of the

picture, the good side as well as the bad. Sophisticated business

people don't look just at the good side; those kinds of business people

don't end up in business for very long. You have to look at the down

side as well as the up side.

The number of business

bankruptcies in British Columbia in 1985 was 1,331, the second highest

in ten years. I can recall reading stories about the Great Depression,

and I can recall listening to politicians like the politicians opposite

who always said, every year in every speech, that the economy was just

about to turn the comer. In every speech they said that prosperity was

just around the comer. But it requires a lot more than positive

thinking and positive talk to do that. What

[ Page 7588 ]

requires is good solid economic policies, pragmatic economic policies,

policies designed to get people back to work in the province of British

Columbia, policies designed to encourage the development of new

businesses with long-term jobs with new products. It requires some

good, hard, fundamental economic policies on the part of this

government, and those policies aren't there.

A lot of

people in B.C. are concerned about the future. Many people are

optimistic about the future, and I think they have a right to be,

because when you see what's happening elsewhere in Canada, there's

reason to be optimistic. Ontario: Ontario now has a construction labour

shortage and they're looking at advertising around the world to bring

construction workers to Ontario. People in British Columbia have a

reason to be optimistic, because they see what's happening elsewhere in

Canada. The rest of the country has recovered from the international

recession. It's only in British Columbia, under the kind of economic

policies that this government has, that they're concerned.

When

they look at Manitoba and look at the level of economic recovery that's

taken place in Manitoba, then they have a reason to be optimistic,

because they think they have an opportunity for that kind of economic

recovery here when the government changes. But people are concerned in

British Columbia for this reason: they've seen this government's

performance before. They've seen this Premier's performance before.

They know that before every election there's a slightly more expansive

and positive attitude being imparted on the part of Social Credit

ministers, these same ministers that right after the provincial

election go around and say: "The deficit's high. We have to cut back.

We have to increase taxes. We have to cut back on the number of people

employed in the public service." These very same ministers are totally

gloom and doom after an election. Then when it comes time for the next

election...

AN HON. MEMBER: They're the Happy Gang.

MR. SKELLY:

...then they become the Happy Gang. Then they start talking positive.

Then they start saying: "Prosperity is just around the corner." That's

what these guys do. You should be aware of that yourself, Mr. Speaker.

That's the problem in British Columbia, because these people have an

economic policy that lasts from one election to the next. It's a

three-year time horizon for these people, Mr. Speaker. No long-term

plans. No direct concern about the real problems facing small business

in British Columbia. No direct concern about the problems facing people

who are poor and who are out of work.

I listened to the

Minister of Labour talk about the 99 percent of people in the world who

are starving and who are beset with problems of instability and

revolution. I listened to the Minister of Labour's concerns about that,

and the fact that his family came here from Ireland 20 years ago to

escape those kinds of things. Mr. Speaker, I wish that member had the

same kind of concern for people here in British Columbia. I listened to

his talk about preventive mediation, about getting involved with trade

unions and getting involved with management in order to prevent

disputes from occurring that have occurred in the past. Where was that

member, talking about preventive mediation, three years ago when this

government came down with one of the most vicious anti-labour programs

that any government could ever have conceived of in this country? This

death-bed repentant stuff about preventive mediation makes me sick, Mr.

Speaker. Where was that member three years ago when this Premier

brought down his vicious, brutal restraint program in this province?

I'll tell you where he was. He was using exactly the same lines to

congratulate the Premier on that program that he's using to

congratulate the Minister of Finance on this one. They're like a bunch

of sheep. I cannot stomach that kind of behaviour in a legislature.

Mr.

Speaker, the people of this province are concerned, because they've

seen the way this government has performed before. They've seen them

come off with an attack right after they win an election. They've seen

them drive down the economy. They've seen them drive people out of

their jobs. They've seen people who have been in business for years and

years being driven out of business as a result of this government's

economic policy after the election, when this government talks about

wanting to control costs and wanting to cut down the deficit. They've

also seen this government change just before an election to the point

where they want to see the economy expanding and they want to see

everybody in British Columbia happy and having a positive attitude.

They don't want to go so far as to create real, legitimate long-term

jobs, or to improve the conditions for business in British Columbia.

They don't want to go so far as to actually bring in a program on

preventive mediation that we can take a look at and improve in this

Legislature. They don't want to go into that kind of detail, because

after the election, I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker: they're going to

go after the trade unions in this province. They're going to go after

teachers in this province again. They're going to go after business

people in this province again. And when Expo is only a memory, they're

going to go after those people and say they have to be responsible for

paying the price of Expo. They're going to cut back on those teachers'

jobs. They're going to tell trade unions that if they have a right to

be in a trade union again in this province after the next election,

they're going to be lucky for that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

people of British Columbia no longer believe this gang. They don't

believe this budget. They don't believe the statements that you are

making about the economy. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people of

British Columbia believe in British Columbia; they believe in this

province. They want this province to be a better place, and they know

it can be a better place, because it has been in the past. They look at

other provinces across Canada, and they know that those provinces have

been through the so-called international recession, that they are in a

process of recovery, but they know that it's not taking place here in

British Columbia.

People in B.C. believe in the future.

They want a future for their children. They want long-term employment.

They want a stable business climate. They want a stable labour

relations climate, and they know what it takes. They know what it takes

now, Mr. Speaker: a change in government. They want to get rid of that

gang that's caused the problems in the first place, and they want to

put in a government that is aware of the problems that face people,

ordinary British Columbians, on a day-to-day basis. They want to put in

a government that is concerned about people. They want to put in a

government that is concerned about doing away with

[ Page 7589 ]

poverty, eradicating poverty, a government that has that commitment — not like this government here.

am very optimistic and hopeful for the future in the province of

British Columbia, as are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of

people out there in every community in the province of British

Columbia. The reason they're confident is that they see a change

coming. Thank you very much.

[11:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I'm cognizant of the — as I indicated last year

— rules of the House which limit the amount of time available to a

designated speaker, and therefore much of the time was used in the

budget debate. I have just a few minutes' remarks to make in closing

this debate.

I'm puzzled by what the Leader of the

Opposition has said, and I think some members of his caucus are puzzled

as well. We've heard the same old theme repeated through the course of

the budget debate that nothing....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order,

please, Hon. members, courtesy has been extended to all members

speaking this morning, and it should be extended to the minister

closing debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I'm puzzled because we've heard the doom and gloom gang, as we

hear every year, and I've got Hansards scattered all over my desk

reviewing virtually the same criticism. But if we as a government party

are in so much trouble, why was I told this morning that we are out of

membership books? We're selling memberships at a rate that I don't

think the Leader of the Opposition fully appreciates.

So much about membership books. But I want to try to....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Obviously that makes them very uncomfortable.

I want to try to....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

members, as the Chair indicated earlier, parliamentary courtesy has

been offered to all members speaking this morning, and it will be

extended to the Minister of Finance as he closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, it would be an understatement to say that I was

disappointed by the general themes developed by the members of the

official opposition in the course of this debate, in much the same way

as they have done previously. May I say, without offending the rules,

that some members chose statistics on a selective basis to make a

particular point. They have done that in the past as well.

Mr.

Speaker, first of all, there is the question of economic growth. Even

some members of the official opposition have agreed that we can expect

relatively good growth in British Columbia this year. The government's

forecast, based on a wide variety of forecasts and not ours alone, is 4

percent. Some opposition members have spoken of something in the range

of 3 to 4 percent. The Conference Board's forecast — and it is used in

debate when it is in the interests of the opposition to use it — is

higher than ours at 4.6 percent.

Post-Expo — that is, in

the calendar year 1987 — some members opposite have, however, reverted

to their traditional negative thinking. They selectively pointed to one

external forecast of 1.3 percent. They chose to ignore — or perhaps it

was just in error, an oversight — the Royal Bank forecast in Econoscope

of 3 percent. But that wouldn't suit their purposes.

On the

topic of employment and unemployment there were some confusing and

contradictory remarks. I suggest, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, that

you'd better, after the Easter weekend, have a caucus meeting to get

your stories straight. We heard the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

deploring the fact that B.C.'s unemployment rate was higher than that

for Canada. He spent some time detailing how 45,000 people were

unemployed because of our higher rate. Of course the rate is high. I

said that on budget day, and I repeat it today: the unemployment rate

is higher than we would like. But even during the brief time that the

NDP formed government in British Columbia from 1972 to 1975, the

British Columbia unemployment rate was significantly higher than that

for the country as a whole. If we're going to develop one theme, surely

we should develop the entire theme in order to present the correct

picture.

It was also suggested by more than one member

opposite that most of the 26,000 new jobs created last year were part

time jobs. In fact, to the best of our knowledge and ability in

identifying these jobs, we find that about 21,000 of them are

full-time, with just 5,000 new jobs being so-called part-time.

Some

members opposite recognized that investment is the key to expanding

employment in the province, but they continued, in developing their

thesis, to oppose one of the major ways in which that investment will

be encouraged, and that is through bringing British Columbia's tax

system into line with those of our competitors. That was the reason for

the tax reductions introduced in 1985 and restated in the 1986-87

budget — over a three-year period, a phased-in period with year one

last year, year two this year and then year three. We have heard

opposition phrases such as "corporate welfare," "giveaways," "tax

breaks" and so on. This demonstrates, in my view, their complete lack

of understanding, both of the necessity for these tax measures and of

the difficult financial circumstances faced by businesses, large and

small, in the province of British Columbia over the last few years. It

is incorrect to have suggested, as I recall some members on the other

side did, that tax measures benefit only large corporations. Well,

there are many small and medium-sized businesses benefiting right now,

at the end of March, from tax reductions, some of which were introduced

in 1985. The small business employee tax credit, which is being

factored into income tax returns at this time, and the venture capital

tax credit were both specifically designed to help small business.

One member questioned whether property tax reductions were going ahead as planned. Well, I restate that the property

[ Page 7590 ]

tax

reductions affecting the government's revenue will continue on a

three-year timetable, which started in March 1985. Only in the case of

property taxes on machinery and equipment for non-school purposes is

there a deferment in phasing out the tax until 1987. That's a

relatively small component. I indicated on budget day that it was

requested by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and we were happy to

accede to that request.

A few other comments, in the

moments remaining, regarding confusion, which appears to be rampant on

the other side, concerning the revenue and expenditure figures in the

budget. Some members across the way still don't understand — or profess

not to understand — how significant tax reductions can be made, new

expenditure initiatives introduced and at the same time the deficit

reduced. This has been achieved both last year and this because of the

actions which we took four years ago. Expenditure growth has been

limited to a rate less than growth in the economy. Revenue growth will

continue at about the same rate as growth in the economy, or slightly

less as a result of the tax reductions — in other words, planned

revenue reductions. Under these circumstances the deficit will decline,

as it has already in two consecutive years.

The member for Nanaimo — whom I have known for a number of years and who is apparently not in his seat today....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, he is not in the chamber at this moment, Mr. Speaker.

offered a revenue forecast which is remarkable not for its accuracy or

its logic, but by its boldness in predicting a decline in revenue while

acknowledging in the same remarks that the economy would probably grow

by 3 to 4 percent this year. So he has really been persuaded to go out

on a limb in forecasting revenue in fiscal '86-87, and I trust, Mr.

Leader of the Opposition, that you and your caucus will allow him to

retreat with great dignity when the figures are finally in.

respond to some of the forecasts in this chamber — as well as outside

on forecast revenue — personal income tax will rise more than in the

current year because of high employment growth, changes to the tax base

by the federal government, and higher growth in personal incomes. In

addition, the current year '85-86 is negatively affected by an

adjustment for a prior year; as a result, the percentage increase in

'86-87 is larger than would otherwise occur.

There was some

puzzlement, I think, over the forecast on corporation income tax

revenue showing a large increase. This is not because of any precisely

expected jump in corporate profits, but because the current year

includes a large negative adjustment for a prior year, so that spread —

understandably and reasonably — is greater. In comparison with two

years ago, corporate income tax revenue is up by 11 percent, and that,

I think most members would agree, is a relatively modest increase. The

reduction in the corporation income tax rate, which is the subject of a

bill, will have only a minor effect in the fiscal year about to start,

as indicated in supporting material with the budget.

Social

service tax shows an increase of 10.6 percent on the same base, up only

slightly from the expected 10.2 percent increase for '85-86. Indeed,

Mr. Speaker, we rather think that that forecast is somewhat

conservative, indicating strong activity among items which are sales

taxable in the province of British Columbia.

Finally, could

I suggest that the member for Nanaimo reexamine the effect of the tax

measures on total revenue and expenditure. Part of the tax reductions

are reflected as expenditure increases, accounting for about I percent

of the 5.7 percent estimated increase in expenditure over the revised

forecast for '85-86.

We also heard in the course of these

days the suggestion that expenditure increases are a more effective way

of stimulating the economy than tax decreases. We would not be

surprised, I think, to hear that this is the result of a federal study.

In British Columbia, with our admittedly and traditional open economy,

much of any general expenditure initiative ends up improving the

economies of central Canada. There are exceptions, of course, such as

highway spending, where the effect is felt on local communities

throughout the province — through higher employment and equipment

rental, for example — but increased spending is generally not an

effective method of economic stimulus for the kind of economy we have

in this province.

Quickly, Mr. Speaker, the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) mentioned the question of a

separation of the operating and capital budget for presentation

purposes. The proposal has been suggested previously by some members

and some commentators. It's true that our budget, excluding capital

expenditure, would show a much lower deficit, and the decline in the

deficit would have been much greater over the last few years if we had

followed that course — if capital expenditure had been excluded. But

there are problems with using this approach in government accounting,

including the difficulty in determining how to account for or

accommodate depreciation. On balance I'm satisfied that the present

accounting policy reflects the fiscal impact of the total budget more

accurately for the observer.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate

that the opposition has generally refused to recognize the improvement

in British Columbia's economy over the past few years. I want to recap

just briefly, as did my colleague the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) earlier today.

Total

personal incomes, an important indicator for all British Columbians,

rose by more than $6 billion between 1982 and '85, faster than the rate

of inflation. The inflation rate itself — 3.2 percent in 1985 — is at a

15-year low. Lumber production, 39 percent higher in 1985 than in 1982;

pulp and paper production, up 25 percent over the same period; power

generation, up 23 percent in the same three years; manufacturing

shipments increased by 21 percent in the three years; and retail sales,

Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), were up 20 percent

over the three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to hear it.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

No, they don't wish to hear that, Mr. Member, because it interferes

with their futile plans. But clearly the economy in British Columbia is

improving, is showing steady, continuous improvement and growth. We

have moved out of the recession. We have tax cuts which make British

Columbia far more competitive with those who do the same sorts of

things that we do in British Columbia.

[12:00]

[ Page 7591 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I indicated earlier in the debate that this is the first

provincial budget to have been presented. Admittedly, two have been

presented since March 20. But I can say that, on the basis of the two

that we have seen and the others that will follow inevitably in the

weeks to come, the British Columbia budget, which has been debated

since March 20, will show itself to be a superior, a thoughtful, a

responsible document.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat the motion which was made at the commencement of this

debate: that is, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go

into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Waterland

Segarty

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Richmond

R. Fraser

Schroeder

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

A. Fraser

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Hewitt

Rogers

Chabot

Johnston

Ree

Reynolds

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lea

Brown

Hanson

Rose

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 25: minister's office, $211,255.

The House resumed: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, April 7.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:09 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada