1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6723 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Amend The Motion Picture Act (Bill M221). Mrs. Wallace

Introduction and first reading –– 6723

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 3), 1985 (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6723

Tabling Documents –– 6723

Oral Questions

Vancouver Transition House. Ms. Brown –– 6723

Expo 86 souvenir sales. Mr. MacWilliam 6723

Mr. Williams

Log scaling. Mr. Howard –– 6724

Mr. Williams

Hazardous chemicals. Mrs. Wallace –– 6725

Tabling Documents –– 6725

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

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 6725

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Michael

Mr. Williams

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the House to welcome my wife to the

gallery today, and a long-time family friend and former teaching

associate of my wife, Mrs. Agnes Fraser from Victoria.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the House today is a member from the

Montana state legislature, Mr. Rapp-Furcek, a neighbour of mine in

southeastern British Columbia. I'd like the House to give him a very

warm welcome today.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTION PICTURE ACT

Mrs. Wallace presented a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Motion Picture Act.

MRS. WALLACE: This is a bill that would in fact bring videotapes, which are disposed of.... [Applause]

I didn't realize this would be such a popular bill. May I join in

welcoming back to the House, after a long absence, the Premier of the

province.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this bill would bring under the

jurisdiction of the Motion Picture Act those videotapes that are

distributed for home viewing. By way of explanation, I think it is only

right that these be regulated through the film classification director

and come under the same kind of classification as other means of visual

display of material. It's important, because of the vastly increased

availability of pornography which violates community standards and of

the gross exploitation of violence, particularly to women and children.

Bill M221 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1985

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Smith, Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 3), 1985.

Bill 56 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.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the 1983-84 annual report of the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER TRANSITION HOUSE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources.

It has to do with the fate of the Vancouver Transition House. In view of the

fact that the experiment in privatizing the Vancouver Transition House for battered

women has failed, and as a consequence the shelter will be closing on June 20,

can the mhjhjinister give a firm commitment to this House that there will be no

disruption of service at the Vancouver Transition House?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I know the member will be

pleased to know that in the last five years, transition homes in the

province of British Columbia have increased from five to 32 at the

present time, and that about ten safe homes have been established. In

addition, there are areas where there is not a large enough area for a

transition home service, but a safe haven is provided for victims of

family violence.

In response to the question regarding the Vancouver Transition

House, as you remember, it was the only transition house in the whole

of the province in that group of transition homes that was operated at

that time by the government. In order to make it consistent with the

rest of the province, we did put out a private contract, which the YWCA

picked up. It was unfortunate, and I was saddened to hear, that the

YWCA felt they could not continue that contract. It was they that

cancelled the contract to operate the Vancouver Transition House. Since

learning of the cancellation of that contract, we have put out a public

tender for bid proposals to come in for the continuation of a like

service for the Vancouver area. I understand, Mr. Speaker, through my

ministry, that we have had quite a good indication of interest.

On the date when they will be able to reinstitute that service,

however, I have not got that information at the present time. How long

it will take them to go through that expression of interest already

indicated and more yet to come probably, I am sorry.... I would be glad

to let the member know as soon as that service is available.

MS. BROWN: A supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the ad in the

newspaper said that submissions could be made to pick up the contract

until June 28, which is the date that the present contract runs out.

I'm asking the minister whether she will assure the House that service

will continue, either through the Y or directly through the Ministry of

Human Resources, to the battered women of Vancouver, since it's the

only transition house in Vancouver, until the new contract has been

awarded.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, of course the service to

those in need of that assistance will continue after June 28,

unquestionably. As the member will know, it is through the response to

the Ministry of Human Resources that the call is usually made — or to

the police or whatever. Then the family or the member or members of the

family are then sent to a transition house or to a safe haven.

Unquestionably that service is going to be continued for whoever calls,

whoever is in need. The service will be continued. Thank you for the

question.

EXPO 86 SOUVENIR SALES

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier....

Welcome back, Mr. Premier. As they say in Japan, konnichi wa,

o-kyaku-sama — at least I think that's how they say it.

[ Page 6724 ]

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You figure it out!

During the Premier's absence it has been revealed that Expo 86

Corporation has entered into a monopoly agreement involving some $75

million in souvenir contracts with a foreign-owned company, Specialty

Mfg. The contract has been awarded without competition. In view of the

considerable public interest in this matter, has the Premier decided to

make the terms of the contract public?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question might more

properly be directed to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond),

who is the government's representative on the Expo board. I would tell

the member that, for my part, I will be meeting with the chairman of

Expo this week to discuss a number of matters. However....

[2:15]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all; to tell him of the enthusiastic

support that our fair has in the Expo community that I had an

opportunity to visit when I was in Tsukuba, Japan, and the fact that

they are very impressed that the construction

schedule is six months

ahead of that which the Japanese exposition maintained. It is the first

fair in recent years that they can remember which is this far along at

this stage of the game. I'm sure Mr. Pattison will be overjoyed to

receive some good news.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the Premier. It might

interest the Premier to know that I have been asking that question of

the minister for the past two weeks and have received virtually no

response. I would ask, in view of that information, if the Premier

would consider answering my questions on whether he has decided to make

the terms of the contract public.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll certainly talk to the Minister of Tourism about it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary to the Premier. A

related contract to supply about 1.25 million copies of the Expo

souvenir guide has been awarded to a company owned by the Expo

chairman. Has the Premier decided to make the terms of this contract

public?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be meeting Mr. Pattison,

and talking over all the business of Expo — I'm sure that we have a

broad cross-section of British Columbians directing the corporation —

from conflict-of-interest guidelines to other matters, and reviewing

things in regard to management. I cannot give an undertaking today that

I will do those things, but I will certainly be discussing a number of

matters with both my colleague the Minister of Tourism and the chairman

of Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm glad the Premier mentioned the

conflict-of-interest guidelines. They have apparently been approved.

But despite a commitment from the Minister of Tourism at an earlier

request from me to make the guidelines public, those guidelines have

not yet been made public. I wonder if the Premier has decided whether

or not to table the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm sure that if the Minister of Tourism gave that undertaking, they'll be here in due course.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier advising us that that is the undertaking of the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I said, if the member would listen, was that if the minister gave that commitment, I'm sure he would keep it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Does the Premier feel that it's reasonable, in

view of all the controversy that has surrounded this enormous project,

to in fact deposit the conflict-of-interest guidelines before the House

so that everybody can be satisfied that they are indeed sound

guidelines?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll better be able to answer

the member's question after I've had my meetings with the minister and

the chairman of the Expo Corporation.

MR. WILLIAMS: So freedom of information is not to be readily available on critical issues like that. Is that the point?

A further question. The business community in our province has been

concerned with respect to the $75 million deal with Specialty Mfg.,

which essentially is a middleman arrangement for souvenirs and which

essentially locks out B.C. people in terms of jobs and opportunities in

terms of souvenirs. Is the Premier prepared to reconsider that

arrangement with this middleman outfit, Specialty?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm certain that all of these matters may

come up during my discussions, but the member for Vancouver East would

well know the reaction of the public no matter how they view the deal,

if government, say through legislation, broke a legal contract. I think

he remembers something about that from his time in government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier saying then that markups of 100

to 550 percent are acceptable with respect to the souvenir arrangements

at Expo? Does the government agree with that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know whether that information that the

member is using is correct or not.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the

businessmen who has been blocked out with respect to Expo souvenirs and

supplies indicates that only three of the 29 articles he saw were in

fact produced in Canada. The remainder were produced in Japan, Taiwan

and Korea. Could the Premier advise us if he reviewed some of those

materials in his trip abroad?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

LOG SCALING

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the Minister of Forests

whether, in light of the tabling of a report from the ombudsman with

respect to what is identified as the Cobb case, the minister has taken

action now to follow the recommendation of the ombudsman and institute

a payment to Mr. Cobb for the shortfall with respect to the scaling of

his timber.

[ Page

6725 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I have not made such a decision. I

thought it rather unfortunate that the ombudsman should table that

report when he did, because he knew full well that my ministry staff

and people from the Attorney General's office were meeting that very

afternoon in ongoing discussions as to the resolution of that problem.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister advising the House, then, that

the group that he's been meeting with is prepared to consider

compensation or some arrangements for righting the problems that Mr.

Cobb has faced through these years?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I did not say that at all. I said we

were having ongoing consideration of the problem. I didn't say what we

were considering doing.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister of Forests advise the House

if he's reconsidering all the arrangements with respect to scaling at

the private level in the province as a result of the information that

he's received?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

When did the minister develop the policy, announced yesterday by the

Victoria manager of the ministry's environment and safety program, that

householders should dispose of deadly PCB wastes in domestic garbage?

HON. MR. PELTON: The remarks attributed to the employee of

the Ministry of Environment and the suggested remark about tossing

fluid-filled fluorescent light bulbs into the garbage were intemperate,

to say the least, and he has been so notified. As far as I'm concerned,

PCB light ballasts are not to be tossed in the garbage as suggested in

the headline of the

article which appeared in the paper. We have

special ways of disposing of them by storage, and I would suggest that

it would be prudent on the part of all householders, or any others who

have occasion to suspect that these ballasts are leaking PCBs, to

notify the ministry and turn them in to us.

MRS. WALLACE: I notice that the minister has realized that

it's the ballasts, not the light bulbs, that have the PCBs. We're going

to notify.... Do you want us to personally call your office? Are you

going to advertise your office number in the paper? Where are they to

be picked up? Where are they to be delivered? What is to happen to them?

What kind of a policy do you have, or do you have a policy? I suspect you don't have any policy.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as on many

occasions in the past week or two, suspects incorrectly. There is a

phone number. I believe it can be found in the telephone book. We have

a 24-hour service that people can call and the problems will be

attended to forthwith.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the other day in question period I volunteered

to table the conflict of interest guidelines as drawn up by retired Justice

Kenneth S. Fawcus. I have pleasure in tabling those now. I hasten to point out,

Mr. Speaker, it was not at the request of any member from over there. I volunteered

to table them and I am pleased to do so.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in a verbal response to a

question asked of me today, I think I quoted — I would have to check

the Blues — that five years ago there were five transition houses in

British Columbia, and now there are over thirty. The numbers are that

five years ago there were seven, and now there are over thirty. I

wouldn't want to mislead the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker tabled special report No. 13 of the Ombudsman of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 4: premier's office, $694,396.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in opening discussion of the

estimates of the Premier's office, I would like to say that sometimes

it takes a view from outside to recognize how well you're really doing.

Sometimes it takes the perspective of those who can view in a

non-partisan sense the accomplishments, the investment climate and the

growth that can be expected in our economy: those opinions have more

validity and a better sense of perspective.

Recently, as all members are aware, along with the Minister of

International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I led a

delegation of business leaders, industrialists and financial people, as

well as three mayors representing communities who have entered into

provincial-municipal partnership agreements. This mission had the most

enthusiastic response, and therefore the busiest

schedule in detailed

meetings, both for our business group and our mayors, and for me and

the minister, with government as well as business leaders, talking

about new markets for British Columbia products, new areas in which we

can broaden our economic base to include a stronger manufacturing

sector, and broaden it into areas in which it creates employment for

our people, and tie it to international markets.

The response we got was not because we were necessarily another

mission from British Columbia but was in recognition of a number of

major policies that have taken place both within Canada and our

province — among other things, the fact that the Canadian government

has changed the Foreign Investment Review Act to Investment Canada.

Instead of restricting investment, that brings markets and investment

that creates jobs and broadens economic activity. The government of

Canada has told the world that Canada is open for business, and

therefore economic development and jobs. That in itself is a

significant fact to those who have wanted to expand their trade with us

in the past, those who recognize that Canada, and particularly British

Columbia, can be a valuable trading partner, a reliable trading partner

and a competitive trading partner. That in itself has significantly

enhanced the opportunities that our businesses large and

[ Page 6726 ]

small have in this province to expand their businesses, and for new areas of business opportunity to be opened.

[2:30]

What impressed as well those who look to do business with Canada, to

buy our products, were the new opportunities that are available now

because of budget measures introduced by this government in the Finance

minister's budget in March, the incentive programs contained within the

municipal-provincial partnership agreement, and the harnessing of our

hydroelectric energy as a way of attracting industry that will utilize

it in order to create jobs and as an additional incentive for

broadening our economic base.

They also were able to view with a sense of perspective how British

Columbia was able to do this, while other provinces and other areas,

instead of cutting taxes and making business more competitive, in fact

increased taxes, providing a less hospitable climate. They are

impressed by the fact that British Columbia has also recognized that it

can utilize those tools that we have within our possession, our energy

and our resources — and perhaps our strongest tool, the partnership of

the people and the partnership of governments working together, rather

than having no strategy and no common commitment to accomplishing this

task.

It impressed them that travelling with the government were not only

industrialists and businessmen but also the three mayors. It brought

home to them, through the mayors being able to talk about their

communities and the type of industry they want, and by how they were

eager to attract investment that created jobs in their area....

Therefore they were part of a very positive program that will provide

economic incentive areas in every part of this province.

It is a unique program, but one which is viewed in a positive way in

the international community. It is one that has caught their attention,

and therefore we'll continue to hear the type of announcements we're

now hearing of new projects for B.C.: new gas sales, new fertilizer

plants, new ammonia urea plants. We'll continue to hear new

announcements of paper mills going into the area of fine papers, which

were announced the other day. Specifically contained within it was the

fact that they were doing it here because of the budget proposals, the

incentive proposals and a competitive tax base introduced by this

government this year. Those things are self-evident when you see things

happening.

Last February.... It's reinforced that this government with its

five-year strategy to do with municipal-provincial economic development

agreements, with its strategy of working closely with the federal

government in encouraging business in key sectors, having made the hard

decisions one, two and three years ago in containing government costs,

runaway compensation in the public sector, in order to have an

affordable tax base and preserve essential services in government

rather than see them threatened by mounting deficits and a growing debt

that would eat more and more into the budget of the province — has been

on the right track. This government is now going to be able to show the

type of improvement and have the type of economic climate — along with

the political stability that this government provides — which will

attract the investment and the jobs to our province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for...

MR. ROSE: Coquitlam-Moody.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How did you know I was going to talk to you?

...Coquitlam-Moody says it sounds like the Speech from the Throne,

and he's right. This government is consistent. We don't say one thing

one day and one thing another like the NDP over there. Yes, we're

consistent. But Mr. Chairman....

MR. BLENCOE: Same unemployment rate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Victoria says: "Same

unemployment rate." We have had difficult unemployment in this

province. It is too high, and the only way to reduce it is to attract

investment and business that compete and stay in business to provide

the jobs. That is how you resolve it, and that is what this government

is doing. Now the member from Victoria says: "Same unemployment rate."

I noticed that they took great glee, never questioned the unemployment

statistics or the figures as long as they were going up and things were

difficult.... Because we've had a difficult time. This province fell

the furthest because of our resource industries and international

markets. Jobs have been lost in those resource industries as they've

gone through a structural change. The member opposite has taken great

glee, never questioning the statistics as unemployment increased.

Then in May there is a major announcement that British Columbia has

a major drop in unemployment, and that there are 37,000 more people

working in May than in April, and 47,000 more than the year before, and

what does he do? He questions the statistics. All of a sudden the

statistics are no good. Oh, they are good when he's able to rant and

rave. Instead of offering solutions, that member over there wants to

criticize and throw sand in the gears, but how obvious it is that he

doesn't want a solution. He is almost gleeful when things are tough in

British Columbia, because he smells that if things get bad enough,

somehow they will get political success. Instead of saying it's good

that there are 37,000 more British Columbians working, he says the

figures aren't correct; the statistics aren't correct, the statistics

he used time and again.

Mr. Chairman, someone might almost think that that member is playing

politics — I hate to say it — and that he lacks sincerity, and that his

party lacks sincerity.

Mr. Chairman, things are improving steadily. When I spoke to the

people of the province in February, I outlined the type of measures

that we could now undertake and that would be presented to this

Legislature, because we had done the difficult things — yes, they were

tough to do — in containing government costs and in containing

unrealistic rises in public sector compensation. I and the Finance

minister said that it's supportable within our five-year plan, to

continue to contain the deficit as well as remove taxes that were

making our businesses less competitive than they should be and

therefore they could no longer be reliable employers, and to encourage

new business to know that they could be competitive in British Columbia

in taxes — in fact, more than competitive, and become new employers.

That's the type of thing that is happening. What we said then we have

introduced and put into the programs in this Legislature.

The results are already being felt. But this program isn't something

developed in a hurry. This program has been part of a plan since 1982

in which the government knew we had to

[ Page 6727 ]

face an international recession. It was obvious to

everyone that there was an international recession and that resource

areas — particularly in industrial slowdown — would suffer the most.

That has been the case. In Canada the two provinces — because they had

the farthest to fall — which were doing the best fell the most: Alberta

and British Columbia. In British Columbia we have responded by

undertaking public expenditure that's affordable, undertaking — under

tight fiscal management — the types of controls that allow us now to be

a more attractive and competitive place for business and industry and

therefore jobs.

The results are starting to show. They're showing up in the

employment statistics; they're showing up in the investment that's

coming to the province. I read in the paper the other day that the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) said investment was fleeing the

province. In the same papers you've got announcements of a $600 million

investment here, a $60 million investment there and new businesses

starting up. You have a decline in the bankruptcies in this province

and you have a new momentum and a new interest in investment.

Investment isn't fleeing. This isn't like 1975, when the mining

industry had fled the province. This isn't like 1975, when more people

left British Columbia than came — the only year that that has ever

happened since those statistics started to be recorded. I remember it.

British Columbians remember it. The only ones who forget it are the

group over there whose memory gets more selective year by year by year.

Mr. Chairman, when I was in Korea and Japan we found a renewed

interest in going beyond the traditional investment and purchase areas.

We see an interest now in secondary manufacture of a number of items.

The success of the Toyota wheel plant in which we are producing wheels

— not as some restriction on automobiles here or to be put on local

supply but for shipping them back to Japan for inclusion on automobiles

for shipment to all parts of their market area wherever they sell in

the world — is an indication to the Japanese industry that you can

produce in Canada, that we've got productive workers, that we've got a

sound economic climate and that we have the ability to produce products

here, not in a captive, protected market, but to compete within the

international competitive market and compete very well. The product

from that plant is of very high quality. It's a credit to the Canadian

and British Columbia workers who are in that plant that we can do it

here. That plant, as well, is one of the areas that has renewed their

interest in Canada and particularly in British Columbia.

You've got to know, Mr. Chairman, that British Columbia plays an important

role in Canada's balance of payments in international trade, and of the

$11.3 billion of trade between Canada and Japan, 70 percent of the product is

sourced from British Columbia. Today, when international trade and balance of

payments are the ways in which countries can make their economies grow and provide

secure employment, it is even more important that British Columbia assist our

country, not only in creating jobs for our people and broadening our own economy,

but in keeping Canada strong economically by having more trade being sourced

out of British Columbia and therefore contributing to a country which needs

to grow stronger as well, for while the first few hesitant steps are being taken,

with the high deficits and the amount of borrowing that now is taking about

33 cents of every tax dollar that goes to Ottawa. That doesn't go to help

people; it goes to pay or service the debt.

So it would be of great assistance, Mr. Chairman, as British

Columbia continues to develop, to continue these types of economic

policies that show leadership, We received praise for our courage in

tackling our problems and we received great encouragement that what

we're able to do now will pay great dividends in the future.

Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude these few opening remarks,

because I've got a lot to say this afternoon, and I look forward to the

opportunity to discuss in more detail a number of key areas with all my

colleagues during this debate of my estimates.

[2: 45]

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to welcome Dr. Spector back to the

Legislature. We unfortunately missed him last year. I don't think we

debated the Premier's estimates in the Legislature, because the Premier

was absent for his estimates.

It's interesting to hear what the Premier says about his vacation in

Asia and about the opportunity to get outside the province and see that

there is a view from outside this province. It's unfortunate that he

didn't have that opportunity when he was Leader of the Opposition. Let

me tell you what he said about a few things that were happening back in

1974, in his Christmas letter to the editor — and I'll relate it to

some of the things the Premier said in the Legislature today, Mr.

Chairman. At that time he said, not sounding as positive as he does now

about the future prospects of British Columbia — but, of course, he may

have been looking ahead to a Social Credit government: "Over 80,000 of

our citizens are now unemployed, and the number is climbing rapidly."

How happy he was at that time that he could make those kinds of

criticisms of another government and not blame it on international

markets, relations among currency values and all of those things, and

that he could take the inside view at that time and suggest that it was

all the responsibility of our little government here in British

Columbia.

But there are two sides to the coin, Mr. Chairman. Let me talk about

unemployment now in the province of British Columbia. According to the

latest statistics, May 1985, actual unemployment in the province of

British Columbia is 198,000. That's 118,000 more than when the Premier

was talking about the sad unemployment situation in the province of

British Columbia in 1974. In some regions of the province there are

more people unemployed than there were in the whole province of B.C. in

1974, when the Premier was expressing his concern. In the Vancouver

area there's 12.4 percent unemployment. There are more people

unemployed in the lower mainland now, even during the construction

phase of Expo and ALRT and all of these projects that the Premier is

talking about, than there were in the whole province in 1974.

The Premier says we take delight in talking about unemployment

statistics. We don't take delight in that at all, Mr. Chairman. Our

constituents are unemployed. Members of their families are unemployed.

We talk about these unemployment statistics because we would like to

see the government do something significant about them, and not talk

about visiting Korea and Japan and getting the outside view. We want to

know what the government is planning to do right here and now in the

province of British Columbia. The unemployment statistics in British

Columbia right now are

[ Page 6728 ]

nothing less than criminal. We are pleased that

actual employment shows an increase of 37,000 over the last month —

37,000 is almost half the people who were unemployed in the province in

1974, when the Premier was complaining about unemployment rates under

the previous government.

What is the Premier planning to do now about the disastrous rate of

unemployment in the province of B.C.? Well, in December 1974 the

Premier said that the Barrett government had recently borrowed $100

million from the U.S. at 10.25 percent interest rates. Then he gave the

Minister of Finance a little lecture about borrowing — and we've heard

this lecture before, Mr. Chairman. I don't fault my party members here

for saying that this is the same speech he has made over and over again

in this Legislature. The debt of the province of B.C. in 1975 was $4

direct debt of the province, which didn't exist at that time at all,

we're dealing with a debt of $17 billion. There's more direct debt in

this province today than there was total debt of the provincial

government back in 1975. We're spending more money paying interest to

bankers in this province than an NDP government could ever have

contemplated.

The Premier talks about borrowing — page upon page upon page of debt

that this province has run up. Complaining about interest rates at 10

1/4 percent — look at the interest rates that this Premier is being

gouged on with the debt he's run this province into. It would be fine

if we were putting people in this province back to work with the money

we borrow, but we're not doing that. With unemployment at 198,000 in

British Columbia, clearly we're not spending that money in the right

areas.

Where are we spending the money? In 1974 the Premier talked about

people living on welfare, people living in poverty. I'll tell you where

we're spending the money now. Back in 1974-75 we spent $400 million on

welfare payments; we're now spending $1.3 billion annually to keep

people on welfare. We're borrowing $1 billion annually to pay the

welfare bill in this province. What a shameful economic performance

this Premier has put on. What a shameful economic performance this

government has displayed. The premier, back in 1974, talked about

bungling and incompetence. The premier established the criteria for

bungling and incompetence, and he measures up to his own criteria. He

talks about welfare — 233,000 people are on welfare in British

Columbia. That's the measure of this premier's performance.

He talks about a few projects that have been developed — the ammonia

plants and the one at Ocelot where they're adding 14 jobs. He talks

about the paper mill that's being proposed for the Howe Sound area —

another 300 and some jobs. We're pleased that those companies are

investing here in British Columbia. Now there may be a trade-off. We

may be making concessions to those companies that we can ill-afford in

the future, but we're pleased that any jobs at all are created in this

province under the current government. Those three projects that the

Premier talked about add up to just over a thousand jobs, and we're

pleased that those jobs have come to the province. They're not here

yet. Some of them are in the future — two years in some cases; beyond

that in some cases. So we're not talking about jobs that are employing

people here and now as a result of this government policy. We're

talking about jobs that have been promised for sometime in the future.

We don't know if these plants will pass the government's environment

regulations, although virtually everything does.

So we don't know exactly what's going to happen with these plants,

but yes, we are pleased that the announcements have been made. And just

over a thousand jobs. We're very pleased to see that those jobs have

been promised for the future, but at the same time this minister, this

government, have cut over a thousand jobs from the education sector in

the province. We've lost those jobs; they're just as important to the

citizens of British Columbia. At the same time as private industry is

announcing new jobs supported by government concessions — in other

words, by the public sector — we're firing well over a thousand people

from the education system in British Columbia.

Back in 1974 the Premier talked about the growth of secondary

industry in B.C. "Investment capital hesitates to come to British

Columbia, " he said, taking some delight in the statement, obviously.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, he didn't say it was fleeing the province,

but then I didn't either. However, I did quote a statement from the

department of regional industrial expansion in which they said

investment was increasing all over Canada. They had taken a sample of

investment intentions of private corporations across the country.

Investment was increasing, they said, all over Canada, except that in

Atlantic Canada it had gone down 5 percent and in that other maritime

province, British Columbia, it had gone down 9 percent. Capital isn't

fleeing the province; it isn't coming here in the first place, if those

intentions are realized.

We don't take delight in those kinds of figures at all, Mr.

Chairman. We would like to see more money invested in the province of

British Columbia. We would certainly hope that British Columbians

invest in the province of B.C. as well, not having to go elsewhere, to

Ontario or Manitoba to invest their money. Manitoba, by the way, is one

of those provinces where investment is increasing, under the more

positive climate created by a New Democratic Party government.

The Premier talked about his visit to Asia. We recognize that

there's a need for British Columbians to go and get that outside view.

We realize that it's important for British Columbians to visit these

countries — government, industry, labour and local government. But we

also think that other things should be done. For example, we had a

visitor to the resources committee of our NDP caucus. You'll be aware,

Mr. Chairman, that under this current government we no longer have

regular meetings of select standing committees of the Legislature. I

don't think terms of reference have ever been assigned to the

Environment and Resources Committee of the Legislature since this

government took office in 1975. That committee hasn't met for ten

years, even to elect a chairman and a secretary, because it's a waste

of time. Terms of reference are never assigned. Legislators don't have

the opportunity to become informed in a bipartisan way as to what's

happening in the province. People out there in the forest industry

especially are desperate to get their information and point of view

across to legislators so that we can make better decisions in this

Legislature.

[3:00]

We met with a representative of the forest industry, a man named

Landucci from Landucci Lumber in New Westminster. It was a public

meeting, and the press were able to come and listen. Mr. Landucci said

he had gone to a trade fair in Hanover that was discussing the

secondary manufacture of

[ Page 6729 ]

forest products — you know, furniture, door and

windowsash components, all of those kinds of things that you see

thousands of times a day. All of them are high value-added products.

They're worth a tremendous amount. They bring in a tremendous amount of

revenue to the companies that produce them, to the workers that produce

them, and to the governments of countries where they're produced. He

went to a trade fair in Hanover, West Germany, where there were 75,000

people involved in that industry discussing the future of that

industry, and selling the parts, machinery and equipment used in that

industry.

Guess who wasn't represented? The wizard salesmen of British

Columbia. The government of British Columbia was not represented at

that trade fair. You, Mr. Chairman, understand how important forest

products are in the province of B.C. and how important they are for

your constituency. They are of tremendous importance. Because of our

high unemployment rate in the forest industry, we need to attract more

jobs by adding more value and finishing the products that we have in

our forest industry, in order to get our people back to work. Guess who

wasn't represented at this trade fair? The government of the province

of British Columbia. There were no missions to West Germany to try to

persuade people to buy more value-added forest products. The government

of Canada wasn't represented either, this government of Conservatives

that's going to break into the world market and sell more of Canada's

products. Thank goodness we have people like Bob Landucci,

entrepreneurs who are willing to overcome the barriers that this

government puts in the way of their going into those markets to sell

themselves and their products. This government doesn't seem to be

interested at all. They couldn't care less if our forest industry went

down the tubes. That seems to be the problem with the Social Credit

government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MR. SKELLY: If it's not true, what are you doing to get

people back to work? What are you doing to get more value added to

forest products in British Columbia? Why aren't you standing up on your

feet in this Legislature and, for once, telling the Premier — when he's

here — that we should be adding more value to our forest products in

the province of B.C.?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Surrey will come to order, and would the Leader of the Opposition please address the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I'm asking those

members over there to do what they were elected to do in this

Legislature during the Premier's estimates, and that is to get up and

start talking about adding value to our forest resources here in

British Columbia so that we can make more revenue, pay more wages and

earn more profits, so that the economy in British Columbia will be

restored. You can't blame that on a decline in the resource markets

that we have, Mr. Chairman. If 75,000 people are going to trade fairs

in Europe to talk about the secondary manufacturing of forest products,

there is definitely some interest out there somewhere. But it certainly

doesn't reside in this cabinet or in this minister. It certainly

doesn't reside here; otherwise we would have had representation there.

"What is more tragic, many of our own citizens are sending their capital

out of British Columbia for safer investment elsewhere." That's a quote

from the current Premier back in 1974, taking delight in the fact that capital

was fleeing the province at that time. We certainly don't take any delight

in that at all, Mr. Chairman. We would like to see it coming in the other direction.

Another thing the Premier said back in 1974 that should be compared

with what he is saying and doing right now: "School construction," he

said, "is far behind current needs." Have you heard that lately, Mr.

Chairman? From your own school board perhaps; from school boards all

over the province of British Columbia. Now some of them may not say it.

They may not make those complaints, because they could be fired if they

say it. So some of them don't make those complaints. They're a little

worried, because the Premier also said in his little Christmas letter

to the editor here that he wanted to restore local control to school

boards.

I took a few notes when the Premier was talking in the opening

remarks that he made to this Legislature. He said: "Oh, we don't say

one thing and then do another like that opposition opposite." He said,

"Restore local control," but he's made an unbelievable power grab,

seizing the power of local school boards, putting it here in the

centralized backrooms of Victoria and going so far as to fire school

boards that defied his will — absolutely unprecedented.

He also talked here about hospitals. I'll stick with education for a

second, because he said here: "Aid to universities is less." Have you

heard that lately? Isn't it amazing how history repeats itself? Ten

years after, and the Premier is cutting back on aid to universities at

a time when we desperately need trained people, at a time when we

desperately need skilled and creative people, at a time when we

desperately need employment for our young people and for all the

citizens of British Columbia — all those 198,000 who are out of work.

What we do in this province under Social Credit is we cut back on

assistance to universities. Isn't it amazing how they say one thing and

then do another?

He talks about hospitals, and having difficulty building hospitals,

and the government cutting back on hospital construction. I got a call

from a lady in Port Alberni who had a requirement to replace her hip.

She's been in pain for two years, and her doctor tried to get her into

Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where they do this kind of surgery

on Vancouver Island. She was put on a waiting list of 900 people. Now

she was expecting to get her surgery and her hip replacement in

September, and she was quite pleased. You only have to wait for two

years and a few months, and that's not too bad to suffer in pain. The

Premier talks about the hardship "we've" gone through as a province —

two years and some months to suffer in pain from a degenerated hip. She

was on a waiting list of 900. I don't know where exactly she was on the

waiting list.

Nanaimo Regional General Hospital got the message a couple of weeks

ago that they were going to have to cut back on their hospital budget,

that they were going to have to close an operating room for three

months or for the summer months, and that they were going to have to

cut back on the number of surgical beds available, so that even if she

got to the hospital, she would have difficulty staying there. So they

couldn't take her in the hospital. She's recently been told that

[ Page 6730 ]

she might be able to get into the hospital in January 1986, just in time to enjoy Expo.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier says one thing and does another. We

appreciated his state of the province message. We appreciated the fact

that he has been away in Japan and Korea for a couple of weeks and

doesn't really appear to know what is going on in the province. But the

Premier shouldn't be criticizing the opposition for taking delight in

unemployment rates that he is largely responsible for himself. The

Premier shouldn't take delight in criticizing the opposition for the

massive borrowings in this province that he is responsible for himself

because of his mismanagement and lack of priorities for the province.

The Premier shouldn't criticize the opposition. In fact, Mr. Chairman,

what kind of a province is this, where a Premier criticizes the

opposition? What kind of a Premier is this? He's trying to do our job

for us, and we're doing it fairly well.

Mr. Chairman, this government has bungled the British Columbia's

economy unbelievably. Absolutely. Even by the criteria that the Premier

laid down back in 1975. By every one of these criteria he's bungled the

province. If unemployment is the criterion, 198,000 people are

unemployed. If borrowing is the criterion, he's increased borrowing in

this province 300 percent. If people on welfare is the criterion, he's

increased recipients of welfare in this province, and the welfare

budget; the welfare budget today is 300 percent of what it was ten

years ago. If problems and layoffs in the forest industry are the

criteria, they're worse now than they've ever been — than anybody ever

contemplated. If the flight of capital from the province, or the lack

of investment in the province, is the criterion, it's worse now in

British Columbia than anybody ever contemplated. If school problems and

university problems and hospital problems are the criteria for

government mismanagement, this government is worse than any government

ever thought about being.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province has nothing to brag

about. Recovery has passed this province by. And the change in

unemployment statistics for one month, the only month that the Premier

has chosen to make reference to unemployment statistics, the only month

that the Premier has taken advantage of quoting the unemployment

statistics.... We used to get them from the statistics branch of the

Ministry of Industry and Small Business, until they stopped publishing

them. But the only month that the Premier chose to quote the

unemployment statistics was this most recent month. As I say, Mr.

Chairman, we're quite pleased that the number of unemployed in the

province has gone down — which could have happened for many reasons.

Some of them may have gone to Manitoba. Some of them may have gone to

Ontario.

Mr. Chairman, I challenge you. According to some sources I have, in

fact there is a negative migration rate in the province of British

Columbia right now. People are leaving the province. All you have to do

is talk to the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, because that's

the information on which they base their statistics: the number of

people who are transferring their family allowance addresses out of the

province. Health and Welfare Canada says that for the first time in

recent history people are now moving away from the province of B.C.;

families are moving away from the province of B.C. They can't get

employment here, so they're going elsewhere in Canada.

A recent publication, by the way, from the Ministry of Industry in

Manitoba indicates that the population is increasing in Manitoba quite

dramatically. One of the things that the government of Manitoba is

doing is attempting to find employment for all of those people who go

there from British Columbia seeking employment under a more cooperative

government and one that seems to be more interested in generating

employment.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, as I said, this government has nothing to brag about.

This Premier has nothing to boast about. This province has done

miserably under the management of the Premier of British Columbia, and

he has absolutely nothing to be proud of.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that after

months of waiting we are now getting the model of the type of

government that the Leader of the Opposition says he would implement in

British Columbia: the model of excellence is Manitoba. What he would do

is exactly what they are doing in Manitoba. I understand they took

great pride at their convention in not having to tip their hand on what

their policies were, so we sort of have to hunt for how they would run

the province. They talk about Manitoba. Well, I have to tell you,

Manitoba for three of the last four years has a net out-migration of

people. They get one year in which 568 people actually came in, and the

Leader of the Opposition calls that a dramatic gain.

[3:15]

I want the members to remember: this is what the word "dramatic"

means to the Leader of the Opposition when he cites his model of

Manitoba. They've had an out-migration: that is, more people leaving

than were coming, in three out of four years. He says that's a good

record. He says that's because of the policies of the NDP government in

Manitoba. He says "dramatic" is that in one of those four years 568

actually came in. Isn't that amazing! Well, I see the latest statistics

on Manitoba. He talks about business bankruptcies. I see that in

January to April this year — that's a pretty good cross-section; that's

the first quarter of the year — bankruptcies were up 5.9 percent in

Manitoba and down 14.8 percent in British Columbia. Now that's the

government, because their policies, their lack of action, their tax

increases.... Things like a tax on jobs. You want to encourage

employers to employ people. Well, the Manitoba policy is to tax you for

every employee you have. They collect about $300 million a year, or

something like that, taxing jobs. You think employers are encouraged to

employ people? Compare that to our policy, where the Minister of

Finance says: "Look, we want to help small business; we'll give you a

$300 tax credit for every employee you've got now, and every employee

you'll have." That's encouraging employment, and that's going to put

$150 million in the pockets of small business to provide secure

employment, to carry out expansion plans. That's in contrast to the

Manitoba model that the leader of the New Democratic Party now says are

their policies. These are the ones he's so excited about that he can

hardly wait to tell us. Although they did nothing at their convention

to tell the people of this province how they would run it, we now know

it's Manitoba.

So three out of four years they lose people, but that's good, according to him. British Columbia is, on a yearly

[ Page

6731 ]

basis, still a province of net gain, and

substantially. I want to give you an example. The two provinces hit the

hardest in the recession were Alberta and B.C. The story is very clear.

Recent federal statistics tell you that 100,000 have left Alberta in

the last couple of years. British Columbia has been a net gainer. In

fact, the story would indicate that while we get people from all over

Canada, we got about one-third of the total that left Alberta. That

makes our job difficult.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now the Leader of the Opposition has

another story. Pretty soon he'll be telling us that it's all right to

support legal actions as long as you agree that they're against

something you don't believe in. Next he'll be saying something like

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, sure he will.

Let's just deal with some of things he says he would do. Well, he

would give us the Manitoba government. Obviously he would give us a tax

on jobs; obviously he believes in the fact that they've been putting up

taxes. That will start to drive out business, make it less competitive.

It's going to be interesting to see how many of the new business

applications that are coming in are people leaving Manitoba, among

other places. Certainly it looks like a good market area for us to

attract investment, because we do have a more competitive tax

environment now in British Columbia, and we don't tax jobs. Let me just

deal with that. I'll have some more things to say about Manitoba in a

minute.

The Leader of the Opposition criticized health care. Of all the

areas in which this government has put a priority during these

difficult times, it's been on health care spending. We've had to do

some difficult cuts in many areas, but the government's budget for

health care is $2.67 billion. It takes 29.5 percent of the budget. This

is a 275 percent increase in expenditures in the past ten years. By

contrast, the combined rates of inflation rose by only 107 percent.

We've been giving a larger and larger share to health care. Obviously

it will always be difficult. I know the Leader of the Opposition

understands that. But the one area above all others in which this

government has placed a priority during these difficult times has been

health care. The record shows, both by the amount of the budget and by

the increase compared to any other area, that this has been a priority

area. Governments have to make tough choices.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about 1974-75 as if the

international recession that we've experienced is somehow...that a

comparable world condition was taking place in 1974-75. If that's what

he's suggesting in trying to compare it.... The public won't buy that

either, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I think everybody recognizes

that....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have their chance. Only one member on his feet at a time, and the Premier has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you should draw the Premier

to order about talking about legislation and other items....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I'm sorry, that's not a point of order. I'll have order in this House, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member can't compare what we've had to

face and had to do in trying to deal with the lower economy because of

a world recession, particularly in a resource area. You can't have it

both ways, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You can't campaign to all the

little groups you try to make a deal with and say: "You elect me, and

I'll give you an unlimited lid. Take off the lid, and you can have

unlimited wage hikes." You can't make those sorts of deals, say you'll

throw out the compensation stabilization program, and still tell the

people that you're going to save them money, and you won't have

deficits and you won't have debt. It doesn't happen that way.

It doesn't happen that you can promise all those things to all those

special interest groups and tell the public that at the same time

you're not going to run them into debt with larger and larger deficits

and more and more money going to interest. There has to be some balance.

It's very clear now that the way in which you can achieve savings is

through more efficient government, and the way to encourage business

and industry is to be able to have a competitive tax system. The Leader

of the Opposition suggests that we're giving something away — some sort

of incentives that we're somehow going to pay a heavy price for. Mr.

Chairman, these incentives of five years of no provincial income tax if

they develop in the areas of municipal-provincial partnership isn't

giving anything away if they're not going to come here. But if that's

the incentive that brings them here, then what we have is the very

thing that we have made our priority — that is, we are not going to be

so thirsty for taxes that we would drive or keep industry out. But by

attracting them, we will have jobs. We will have economic value being

earned, and we will have the multiplier effect.

The member scoffs at 300 or 400 jobs. Each job is important. If it's

in the private sector, it's a permanent job. That's what we've always

said. We have to encourage the private sector. We have to remove

disincentives. Quite frankly, I will admit that our tax burden was too

high. It was a disincentive. But you have to find a way so that at the

same time that we make it competitive, we do not leave such a gap. We

have a high level of public spending that is not supportable.

What we have done over the three years is to get a supportable level

of spending, made health care a priority and been able to do what no

other government is doing at the same time: contain the deficit to

affordable levels and be able to have a more competitive tax regime,

which is attracting investment and business and jobs to this province.

Mr. Chairman, you can't do one without the other. I don't know how

the New Democratic Party, when it opposed all of the areas in which we

had to make tough choices in cutting costs, can stand up and say: "Oh,

the solutions are easy now." They were not easy. We could only do them

because we have faced some tough choices. Yes, we suffered some

political pain.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not selling.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's not selling?

Interjection.

[ Page 6732 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, I thought your pub wasn't selling, and that's why you're back in politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members of this House

know that there's only one person to speak at a time, and that is the

person that is on his feet. At present the Premier has the floor, and

I'd like order, please.

AN. HON. MEMBER: You're attacking small businesses.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all. The small businesses are the

beneficiaries of all the tax cuts, plus the special tax credit. Of all

the businesses, small business will be the beneficiary of our programs.

Of all of the opportunities, small business can be the fastest

employer. When you look at the employment statistics that did come out

just recently — they talked about the change in increased employment in

British Columbia — you'll see it spread over a number of sectors. It

isn't confined to any special group. What it does is spread over the

broad economic base, and the jobs are all created in the private

sector. They're not make-work, short-term jobs. Those jobs were all

there in the private sector, Therefore we can presume that they are not

the type of jobs that provide a short-term employment and then leave a

cost to the government and haven't resolved the problem for the person

or the family involved.

Mr. Chairman, the member talks about Manitoba. Manitoba has a

deficit and debt which as a percent of their gross domestic product is

60 percent higher per capita than British Columbia's. That's grown

substantially and is much higher per capita — the growing debt and

deficit — right now than British Columbia's. It's continuing to expand.

Now if that's your model, and you support their policies, you can't on

the one hand criticize what we've done in trying to develop a

manageable deficit, maintain essential services and encourage business

investment, say you'd do the same as Manitoba and not take

responsibility of saying: "Yes, we're going to spend more money. We're

going to give more money in wage increases to all those public service

groups, because we've promised it. We're going to wipe out the

compensation stabilization plan. We're going to increase spending in

all these areas, and we're going to borrow $5 billion or $10 billion or

$20 billion." All you have to do is give a figure. The public might

understand it. They might go for your approach. But don't pretend you

can do both, because Manitoba is showing that you can't. They're now

starting to live with the results. You think their figures look good?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your time is up, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I'll be back.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what we have seen is a mini election

going on in front of us. I know that, because all we talked about was

1974 and 1975 from both sides of the House. Either that or some other

jurisdiction or some other country, how they're doing it, how we would

do it, and how they didn't do it; you're a bad guy and I'm a good guy.

Basically what we saw was the same argument we see every election in

this province. We see the Social Credit saying: "We're for free

enterprise and you're not." We hear the NDP saying: "Oh, yeah? We like

people and you don't." As if the two are incompatible; as if you can't

have a market economy being the driving force of your wealth-creation

and still have compassionate people who take

part in that. Both sides

of this House think the other is incompatible. "You can't have

compassion," one side says, "and free enterprise on the other." The

other side says: "Well, you can't have free enterprise in a dog-eat-dog

world and have compassion."

[3:30]

Let's take a look at the hypocrisy we've heard from both sides of

the House today, because they proved it on each other. The Leader of

the Opposition went back to 1974 and read back to the Premier some of

the things the Premier said then, taking glee in the fact that

investment was fleeing, and that there was unemployment. There's no

doubt about that; I remember 1974 also. But at the same time, when is

the Social Credit going to admit that in 1974-75 we were in a recession

in this province? It was not as deep and not of the same kind that

we're in today, but there was one.

On the NDP side of the House they say: "Isn't it terrible that we

have a deficit?" Are they against deficits? Are they saying that with a

downturned economy, an economy in transition and no sale of our

products — and if we are selling them then at a lower price — that

they'd have no deficit? Mr. Chairman, you'd have to be stupid to

believe that. There would be a deficit.

On the other side of the House the Premier is saying: "But all the

jobs are from the private sector." All the jobs are from the private

sector? We've never had so many public works programs going on at any

one time in this province. We have more money going into public

spending for public works than at any time in our history. Is that good

or bad? Are the projects good or bad? Is the deficit money being spent

properly? Those are the questions. Not "You did it, I did it, we

wouldn't do it, they did it, you're terrible, you're evil, we're good,

you're bad." That's all we're getting.

We have some real problems in this province. I didn't hear those

real problems being discussed by either the Premier or the Leader of

the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition says to the Premier: "You

are responsible for the international downturn in the economy." What's

the Premier saying? He said: "Well, if there is anything that is

produced, we're responsible for it." He points to the latest statistics

of 37,000 jobs in one month. The Leader of the Opposition rightly

pointed out that it's the first time he's talked about those statistics

in months, if not years.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful, Mr. Chairman, to have heard an

intelligent debate between the Leader of the Opposition and the leader

of government about the problems in this province, discussing with one

another and with other members of this House what might be done, how we

could work together as the people's representatives to address some of

those problems?

The first thing we have to do if we are going to do that is the same

as personal problems. Before we can deal with our personal problems, we

first have to recognize them and own up to them. Then we can get down

to solving them. Neither one, the Leader of the Opposition or the

leader of government, would discuss that. We have problems in the

forest industry; we have problems in mining; we have problems in

fishing. But do they think they're so bad? Are we so full of despair in

this province that we're afraid to even talk about them and discuss

with one another possible solutions? Are we so afraid that if we take

action we may make a mistake that we take no action at all?

[ Page

6733 ]

I didn't hear from the Leader of the Opposition, during his whole

speech, one suggestion as to what he would do if he were the leader of

government.

MR. SKELLY: Make a proposal.

MR. LEA: Oh, he says to me: "Make a proposal." What are you going to do: say yes or no? Where are your proposals?

At the NDP convention they brought forward an education policy and

said: "Send it back to committee. Bring it back next year." At the same

time, the Leader of the Opposition was standing in front of his party

saying: "I think there will be an election before next convention."

Does that mean they are going to go into it with no education policy?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say at your convention?

MR. LEA: What did they say at my convention? You wait and see what they say. I'll tell you one thing: it won't be full of hypocrisy.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It won't be full of members? Well, wait and see

about that, because I'm going to tell you that the only place that this

province is polarized any longer is in this House. Out with the

citizens of this province, it is the most unpolarized province that we

have been in a decade. If you don't believe it, get hold of the latest

Decima report and find out for yourself: the most unpolarized province

and the most polarized House. That's what we have. I wish I had brought

it into the House: the United Party put out an economic proposal for

small business, the most comprehensive program that any political party

has put forward in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many copies did you print?

MR. LEA: Five thousand. You didn't print any, because you

don't have one in your party. You don't have one; in fact, no policy

comes out of the Social Credit Party. It may come out of government,

but boy, there isn't policy coming out of that party, that's for sure.

I was reading a copy of the Democrat , the NDP newspaper. I read four paragraphs of policy for small business.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you get it?

MR. LEA: They were so stupid they haven't taken me off their mailing list. That's how I got it.

Four small paragraphs on their small business program, four small

paragraphs that basically say nothing: is that their program for small

business? Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that the NDP saying that

they're going to commit bigamy with small business while they're still

married to vested interest groups in this province is absolutely

ridiculous.

One thing the people of this province are fed up with is political

parties that owe their soul and owe their being to vested interest

groups, no matter who they are. The only thing about the NDP that is

different from the Social Credit is that the NDP are more upfront about

who their vested interest groups are. On the other side, those vested

interest groups are there.

We have two political parties in this province that have been bought

and paid for. They've been bought and paid for by vested interest

groups, and there are people in this province who are looking at both

of them, and they're saying enough is enough; we would like to have a

government in this province that represents everyone in a pluralistic

society, not just those vested interest groups that can afford to buy a

political party. That's what they're saying.

Mr. Chairman, members other than the Leader of the Opposition and

the leader of government have talked in this House about the state of

the forest economy in this province, and the fact that the most liberal

estimate says that we have 40 years of merchantabletimber left to cut

if we continue to cut at the annual allowable rate we're cutting at now

— and that is being very liberal. That is a real problem that we have

to deal with. If we did all the reforestation now that people are

calling for — and we should — there would be a 40-year gap, at least,

between that new timber coming on stream and the end of the old cut.

And the new timber would not be of the same value — it would not be of

the same strength; it would not have the same cellulose content.

We have to take a look at our forest industry, not just for today

but for the future. We have to take a look at our education policy, not

just for today but in the future. We cannot live in the past, as these

two major political parties want to do. Because one is 100 years ahead

of the other shouldn't give that one political party any amount of

succour. One party in the 1850s and another in the 1950s — why don't we

have one for today and tomorrow? Mr. Chairman, did you hear one

positive thing come out of either one — the Leader of the Opposition or

the Premier — except that they were haranguing each other? That's all

they were doing.

MR. SKELLY: We're waiting for you.

MR. LEA: Well, you're waiting for us? I'll send you a copy of

our small business paper, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Take a look at

it and compare it to your three paragraphs.

MR. BARNES: You wrote it.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't. I didn't write yours. I can't write shorthand.

Now what about the Social Credit? They want people to re-elect them,

when they have been one of the most divisive forces in society. They

take a poll and find out that people out there are not happy with

teachers, and they say: "There's prey. Let's slam them for a while. If

people are angry at the teachers, let's get them. The people will be

with us. People are not happy with the educational system — let's get

it. Let's attack it. Let's use divisiveness — divide and conquer — and

attack anybody as long as our polls show us that they're vulnerable

today." Maybe not tomorrow. If they did, they'd change their tactics.

They run on polls.

We have a party in opposition that is out of ideas. I remember

listening to a radio program not that long ago where Stephen Lewis was

accusing Eric Kierans of the Liberals of stealing NDP ideas over the

years. Eric Kierans said: "You know, you're right. The problem is you

haven't had any to steal for the last few years." Still living in the

sixties and the fifties, trying to apply the economic policies of those

years to a brand-new economy.

[ Page 6734 ]

And on the other side of the House they're a little bit more up to

date economically, but, boy, when it comes to winning elections, they

don't care who they hurt.

You know, Mr. Chairman, people out there are fed up with both of

them. They would like to hear about ideas; they would like to discuss

ideas; they'd like to be part of it. I talk to people out there about

cooperating, and they like it. People on both sides of this House know

it's true. Now on the other side of the House they can at least mouth

the words; on this side they can't, because the labour movement doesn't

want it. So they can't talk about it.

But the truth of the matter is that if you're going to have

tripartism work in this province, if you're going to have peace and if

you're going to have cooperation, there has to be trust. Can you

imagine the day when the trade union leaders and the trade union

members in this province could ever sit down with Social Credit with a

feeling of trust? They're not going to. Can you imagine the day when

business is going to sit down with the NDP in this province with a

feeling of trust? They're not going to, because the trust isn't there.

There is too much baggage. There's too much history of deceit, and to

get this province moving again we have to have that trust. There has to

be a new political entity in this province — without baggage — with new

people who can sit down.... There has to be a party made up of the

pluralistic society we live in, not just representing vested interest

groups in society. A pluralistic society demands a pluralistic

political party, one that will work with the people with trust, with

cooperation, to take this province forward. We don't have to go left;

we don't have to go right. We can go forward with trust and

cooperation, but it'll take a new broom and a new political party and a

new day.

[3:45]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I always have such high hopes when the

member for Prince Rupert stands up and says nobody else has been

positive, but he's going to be. He then spends all his time attacking

both the opposition and the government. But I must say it was a

balanced attack. I'll give him credit for that. Then we got.... The

positive approach was not policies; it was.... What was it? We need a

new party — that was the solution. I guess he missed the first part of

my remarks, when I talked about the solutions this government has

already in large

part introduced, which will work.

There are no miracles to be wrought. There's an economic strategy.

It involves partnership with the municipal governments and providing a

fair and competitive climate for business. We're able to do that

because we've practised some very difficult management through some

tough years of international recession, and it's being felt. There is

great interest in investment in jobs that will have markets. You're not

going to have investment in jobs or companies that will remain if they

can't sell the product. In many cases the three are tied up together,

and of course, they have to be. For that matter, they require foreign

investment if they're to be of the magnitude that provides a lot of

jobs, or opens up a whole new industry, and be able to sell the product.

Canada as a market economy is not large enough to support the type

of economic benefits that Canadians have set as goals for themselves in

the past, during the recession and for the future. I'm always surprised

when.... We know we've got to trade.... I was reading Bruce Hutchison

just recently, and he talks about this very unusual line from the New

Democratic Party convention. He says:

"The recent party convention answered that question in

a blazing heresy yet to be explained or understood. It was easy and

predictable for the convention to propose vastly increased governmental

expenditures and the higher taxes accompanying them, on top of those

already enforced by the federal government's first budget. But the

heresy is something else altogether. Nothing less than opposition to

unlimited economic growth, the most sacred cow and cure-all of all the

world's societies.

"...as socialists we must question the notion that increased

productivity and securing a competitive edge internationally is the way our

economy must go. Unfortunately many socialists have become as obsessed with

the logic of maximizing economic growth as the capitalists have. We must remember

the real goal of socialism is not rapid economic growth...."'

That's got to be the craziest statement I've ever heard. If we're

going to talk about jobs for our people, we can't have statements like

that saying that we should deny international participation. We need

more, not less, access to international markets.

So we need a broadened economy, and if the member for Prince Rupert

didn't hear, our economy has gone through a structural change. The

forest industry....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It isn't just a normal dip and curve; it is

structurally different. Resources on the world market have all gone

through a major change. In trying to encourage them to develop

additional products, we've had to keep them competitive, and that is....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The tax reductions help every forest

company in this province. I guess you've done an analysis, Mr. Member

for Vancouver East. How much has it saved the forest industry? How much

do those tax cuts mean to the forest industry?

MR. WILLIAMS: You've got your researcher there; let him tell you. Isn't that the way it works?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm waiting for you to get up and embarrass

yourself. I'm waiting for you to get up and embarrass yourself once

again, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. Anybody that's worth $80,000 has

got to put in full value in this legislative chamber. Anyone that could

sell his seat for $80,000 has got to be listened to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. Premier address his remarks to the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I will.

The other thing I was concerned about was the suggestion that

somehow this province short-funds post-secondary education — implied in

the speech of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) but dealt with by

the Leader of the Opposition and his party time and time again. I have

to tell you that

[ Page 6735 ]

the taxpayers of this province pay the second-highest costs per student in our post-secondary system of all of the country.

MR. SKELLY: Where do you get that money?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That money comes from the taxpayers.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. members will have their

opportunity to stand in debate on the Premier's estimates. The Premier

is recognized.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I was interested. It seems to

me the Leader of the Opposition was saying what his education critic

has been saying: that money collected by the federal government and

turned over for established program finances — that our government was

not passing it on fairly to the education system. Is that what he's

saying? Why were you saying that we're unfair? Because I find it

passing strange that we've taken all this criticism publicly from

members of your party that we haven't lived up to the terms of the

established program financing, and that we're shortchanging education.

Do you believe that? Well, I've got to tell you: it's not correct. The

established programs financing agreement never broke down money between

education and health care. It was block funding on tax points for the

total EPF. The province then can allocate the money in the areas of

need; all provinces do it.

We've been saying this for a long time, but you never seem to

listen. So let me say, that's not just my opinion. I have here a letter

written to the federal government by the Finance minister of the

province of Manitoba, Vic Schroeder. Obviously you agree with Manitoba

on everything, except when one of your misdirected criticisms of our

government doesn't agree with what he says. Here's what he says, to do

with established program financing. This letter is a long letter. I'll

table a copy of it later, because it's been well circulated. He's

writing about the Johnson report being incorrect. He says:

"I would also like to take this opportunity to review

briefly some of the principles which I believe must guide the review of

EPF.

"EPF is a block fund. Federal input through EPF to

post-secondary education cannot be divorced from the share the federal

government provides for the total of health and post-secondary

expenditure.

"Phony arithmetic which artificially splits the

payments or redefines and limits the program costs which are being

shared through EPF will not be helpful for our review and discussions

on EPF. The broadest view must be taken as we begin our dialogue."

He goes on to say in this letter — I may at some point want to read

the whole thing — that it has never been agreed to by any province, nor

is it in the agreement, that there is an arbitrary allocation of money.

We have said that for a long time.

What you have is this. The demographics of provinces are different.

So when we take the funding, it is allocated to the areas which have

need. Need in health care in this province.... The demographics of the

large number of citizens over 65, who need much higher costs in health

care, would indicate that our health costs are going to get more

attention. The fact that our post-secondary population still, in the

way we allocate the money, is the second-highest per pupil in the

country, by the last statistics that I've reviewed, is significant.

That is the way you measure it. But to promote.... And I've seen it

done. It's not just some politicians. It's easy to understand why you

do it — why you misuse it and abuse that agreement, to say that we're

shortchanging federal dollars. But I've seem some who....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson) will have his opportunity in debate when the present

speaker takes his place.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let me once again explode the myth that

somehow we have offended against the EPF and misdirected money. Quite

probably there are many critics — some of them in public life — who

have never read the EPF agreement. Well, I've got to tell you that

there's one NDPer who has read it: the Finance minister of Manitoba,

and he doesn't agree with the things you've been saying. So let's put

that to rest.

So Mr. Chairman, that deals with a couple of areas of criticism that

go into a number of areas that probably have been well canvassed during

other estimates during this sitting.

MR. SKELLY: It's interesting to hear the Premier's response

to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who has since left the

House. I think he has an appointment with the press, possibly, or

possibly he is reading the Decima polls or developing some positive

policies.

But it is interesting what the Premier chooses to quote or not to

quote in the Legislature. It is a problem, of course, to deal with

positive policies during estimates, because what we are doing during

estimates.... The member for Prince Rupert should know this all too

well, Mr. Chairman, because he has been here for the better part of the

last 12 or 13 years. I think he is winding up an illustrious career.

The Premier talks about the funding for post-secondary education. He

uses an argument that nobody has ever used in this Legislature, at

least on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. Everyone on this side of

the House knows what the EPF is all about. They tried to foist it on

our government when we were in office. It was only when you took over

that your ministers accepted the EPF on the current basis.

[4:00]

But the statistics the Premier

should be looking at are those that indicate — to quote his own

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

— that British Columbia has the worst student-aid system in the

country. That's a quote from his own minister. I challenge his own

minister to table that information, but he's already made it public.

It's available in Hansard . The Premier could read it if he likes. We

have one of the lowest participation rates in the country. We have

fewer high school graduates going to university from British Columbia

than high school graduates from other provinces in Canada. There is no

question that the criticisms that are levelled against this

government's post-secondary education policy are valid, and they're

accepted by virtually everybody in the university community.

The Premier thinks, I guess, that he's got one over on us if he can

quote a letter from Vic Schroeder that refutes an argument that we

weren't making. What we're saying, Mr.

[ Page 6736 ]

Chairman, is that this government is totally irresponsible in the

way it manages the post-secondary system of education in this province.

It spends none of its own money on post-secondary education; it spends

what it gets from the federal government. This government does not

participate in post-secondary education, which is one of its

responsibilities as a government, and that's a shame.

Do you know what that means, Mr. Chairman? It means if somebody

wants a job as a professional in British Columbia, they have a better

chance if they come from elsewhere. It means that if we hire

professionals in various categories of employment in British Columbia,

then we have to hire them from outside the province, while our

prospective students sit here on unemployment insurance and welfare.

That's the irresponsibility of this Premier and the irresponsibility of

his government.

We had a president of a university resign. He said that he could

manage with restraint — that wasn't a problem — but he had a government

in office in British Columbia that was constantly changing the

goalposts. Nobody knew from one day to the next, from one month to the

next, from one year to the next what the policy was going to be with

respect to post-secondary education in the province. He wasn't

criticizing the restraint per se. We all realize that during tough

economic times you have to cut back. You have to hold the line on

public expenditures. Nobody on this side of the House has ever

advocated unlimited expenditures.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The problem, as Mr. Pedersen pointed out, is that the government has

no policy goal with respect to universities and no vision with respect

to the role of universities in society or the role of universities in

our economy. That's the criticism we have levelled at this government,

and obviously a criticism that this minister hasn't heard.

We have proposed solutions. The member for Prince Rupert has misread

the Democrat , because we passed our education policy at that last

convention, and I'll tell you that Mr. Hutchison has too. I hate to

criticize a worthy gentleman like Bruce Hutchison, who has been a

journalist for many years. The simple fact is that a paper on

technological change was presented to our convention. Concern was

expressed in that paper that if technological change takes place at a

rapid rate and there are no systems or mechanisms in place to allow

people to change into new jobs or develop new approaches, then there

are going to be serious problems, as there have been in this province

of British Columbia because we have no policy provincially with respect

to technological change and its impact on our citizens. The Premier

talks about the market economy: "Let the private market take care of

it. Let everything adjust in its own way without the government

becoming involved, or trade unions or companies becoming involved, in

order to make sure the technological change doesn't cause serious

impact on people's lives."

By the way, the discussion paper that Mr. Hutchison talks about was

not adopted as policy by our convention. It's an important fact that

may have slipped Mr. Hutchison's observation. But it was accepted by

the convention for further discussion.

Political parties in this province should be discussing these kinds

of issues. The Social Credit Party should be discussing these kinds of

issues. This Legislature should be discussing these kinds of issues. It

is certainly a point of discussion out there in the province, by those

very vested interests that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talks

about. Those trade unions are discussing the impact of technological

change, are discussing ways that technological change can take place,

but not in such a way that its impact is borne by workers who lose

their jobs. Instead they are proposing that the impact be dealt with by

society as a whole, including government, unions and business. So

people are dealing with the issue out there. It's unfortunate that it

isn't being dealt with here. I suppose it's just another measure of the

irresponsibility and the lack of concern on the part of this government.

Now the Premier says that health care in the province of British

Columbia is a priority. Well, thank goodness they don't have other

priorities, because people are suffering. People who require the

services of our hospitals are on waiting lists. In the case of Nanaimo

Regional General Hospital, as I mentioned, the waiting list is 900

people long.

What has been the response of the Ministry of Health? What has been

the response of the hospitals, because their budgets have been limited?

The response of the hospital is that they've had to close an operating

room for the summer of 1985, and they've had to shut down surgical

beds, so that this woman — one of the very senior citizens that the

Premier talks about and expresses such concern about; the fact that

they require more expenditure on their health care and require that

health care more than other age groups in society — this senior citizen

that I was talking about is not going to be able to be treated and to

receive a hip replacement until January 1986. If that's the measure of

the Premier's priorities, what a shameful operation this Premier is

running. That's one example of what's happening all over the province

of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's her name?

MR. SKELLY: Well, I won't tell you her name. I don't think it'll do her much good if you know it.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier talks about manageable deficits. He

compares Manitoba's deficits with the province of British Columbia.

When this Premier first started managing deficits, we didn't have any.

Now he's managed it to the point where we're almost $5 billion in the

hole, in terms of accumulated deficits. When this Premier begins to

manage something, everybody should get worried about it. When this

Premier begins to establish priorities, everybody starts to get

worried, because when the Premier gets involved in something, it's

inevitably botched up and mismanaged. That's the problem. That may

sound a little bit negative, but it's hard to sound any different when

you consider the serious problems that are facing this province.

The Premier talks about the multiplier effect on private sector

jobs. He doesn't seem to realize that there's a similar multiplier

effect that applies to jobs in the public sector. In fact that

multiplier effect applies to jobs regardless of where they originate.

For example, for every person you lay off or eliminate, for every job

you eliminate in the public sector, you eliminate 0.7 jobs in the

private sector. It's a formula that economists use all the time,

whether they're public or private sector jobs. Every ten schoolteachers

you lay off results in the elimination of seven jobs in the communities

where those teachers work, and jobs in the private sector providing

goods and services that are used by those teachers. Whether you

eliminate janitors or construction workers, human resource

[ Page 6737 ]

workers, child care workers, all of those kinds of jobs....It

doesn't matter which job you eliminate, you eliminate the spinoff

effect and the multiplier effect of those jobs.

The Premier seems to think that if any employment is going to be

created in this province, it's going to be created by the private

sector, and nothing can be further from the truth. The private sector

generally follows the public sector in terms of its confidence in the

economy. If government shows confidence in the people of this province,

confidence in the economy, if government is willing to invest in this

province, then the private sector generally comes on side and becomes a

part of that confidence.

The Premier compares Manitoba with British Columbia. It's a fact

that when government confidence in the economy declines, then private

sector confidence in the economy and private sector investment decline

also. That's been the problem here in British Columbia. Total capital

investment in the province....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, we're not saying that. We're saying that you

cannot separate the public sector and the private sector. They don't

operate as two separate entities. If they're going to be successful

they have to work together. Nobody is suggesting that there should be

unlimited expenditure in one sector or the other. That doesn't make

sense; it's silly. And it's silly to attempt to put those kinds of

words in people's mouths. Both sectors have to work together.

It's interesting when you track the decline in investment in British

Columbia. Total investment in the province declined in 1982 by 15

percent; 1983, by 8.1 percent; 1984, by 5.8 percent. There has been a

period of consistent decline in investment in the province. That's been

tracked by private investment declines as well: minus 24.6 percent in

1982; minus 14.3 percent in 1983; minus 1.7 percent in 1984. The simple

fact is that when the government refuses to express its confidence in

the people of this province and in the economy, the private sector

moves away as well. They simply will not go along with what they see

happening in British Columbia.

The Premier also talks about policy stability. I mentioned policy

stability with respect to universities. The reason Mr. Pedersen quit

his job at UBC and left the province was because he couldn't take the

uncertainty of policy with respect to post-secondary education. Other

people have quit as well, not simply Mr. Pedersen. Mr. Pedersen was not

necessarily that favourable to the NDP. He saved a few licks for the

NDP while he was at it. He said that the difficulty in this province

was not restraint; it was the uncertainty, the lack of goals, the lack

of objective, the lack of vision that this party has in government.

That's what we need in a government in this province.

The Premier also talked about lower taxes attracting investment.

Look at the tax information that the Premier himself provides in budget

speeches and annual reports. Personal income as a percentage of federal

tax: 30.5 percent in 1975, 44 percent in 1985. Between '75 and '85,

corporation income has gone up; gasoline tax has gone up; diesel per

gallon has gone up — it has doubled; retail sales tax, a major revenue

generator in this province, has gone up from 5 percent to 7 percent;

cigarette taxes have gone up....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: And we supported that.

Cigarette taxes have gone up from 8 cents a package to 62 cents a

package. Hospital insurance: nil in 1975, $5.50 a day in 1985. Medical

services premiums: $60 for a single person, now $204. If you don't

consider that a tax on employment.... Every company that has a

collective agreement in British Columbia pays that increased tax on the

part of its employees, and it amounts to a tax on employment in this

province — a $432 medical premium for a family.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was interested in the Leader of the

Opposition's explanation of the information from their convention

contained in the Hutchison article. The way Mr. Hutchison put it seems

more consistent with the statement of the new member from Vancouver

East, quoted in the Times-Colonist on December 4. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition could comment on this:

"Williams blasted the Social Credit government for

scurrying around looking for outsiders to bring in money. 'The job to

be done is right here in Victoria...around the province.' He called

for reforestation programs and special employment programs on the

Island and in the interior. 'The answer is right here in British

Columbia. It's self-sufficiency in British Columbia that has to he our

goal."'

We earn the largest part of our economy outside the province. That's

how we have the standard of living that we do. That's how we've earned

it in the past. You're not going to earn it by putting a wall around

the province and earning it inside. In fact, the quickest way to

restore the economy is to attract additional investment and encourage

our own people to invest. The sort of statement that we don't need

outside money, and don't want outside investment in our province, isn't

encouraging for us in getting that money. It isn't encouraging to those

who would get jobs from it when you have a prominent member of that

party making statements like that, that that's the policy of the New

Democratic Party. Because that seems more consistent with what I read

in the Hutchison column. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might

want to separate himself from that statement, Mr. Chairman.

Further to the British Columbia economy and the way it develops, I want to talk about jobs in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's the most expensive clipping service in town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[4:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver East isn't earning his money today.

I want to talk about your point about public sector employment as

the answer, in dealing with the private sector. You can't borrow scads

and scads of money to unrealistically employ people in the public

sector. You used the example of laying off teachers. We're only

returning to the pupil-teacher ratio that we had in 1976. That was

higher than the PTR during the previous administration. We're only

returning it to there. It seems realistic, particularly in these times

in which the taxpayers don't have a lot of money.

Where are the areas that have been hard hit by the recession, which

I acknowledge? Where are these sectors? The sectors that have been hurt

have been primary industry, manufacturing and construction, some in the

service. The area

[ Page 6738 ]

that has received the least cut is the public service. If you see

where the jobs have been lost, they have been lost in those areas

particularly where jobs depend on sales of resource products — whether

it's mining or whether it's forestry related. The jobs have been lost

in those areas where they depend on international purchase in an

international marketplace.

We have not been unrealistic in the way that we have tried to deal

with having an affordable public service that reflects the ability of

the taxpayers to pay. It's not unfair to say to those who have suffered

because of the international marketplace that we're not going to burden

them with either costs or debt — because as citizens the debt becomes a

part of them — more than we have to during a difficult time, by not

reaching realistic targets and realistic levels there. Our concern was

that the unemployed workers in forestry and mining and other areas of

course had to be assured that there weren't those that were protected

from the recession at their expense, either in direct payment or future

debt.

Yes, we have a deficit now, and we have a debt, and we had a surplus

going into the recession. You can't criticize us as being heartless and

cruel in the provision of public services, and then say that we haven't

tried to achieve a deficit that we could manage — which we are reducing

— in order to pay those hospitals you say need more money, in order to

pay education that you say needs more money. We haven't tried to

unreasonably balance the budget, but we've tried, and I would say

successfully, to balance all of the public interest — on the financial

side, something that we could manage, and on the social side. We have

borrowed money during this recession, when the tax system did not send

enough money to support those essential parts of our service. We have

borrowed money for education and health care and in areas of helping

people who — many through no fault of their own — are in unfortunate

circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, you can't on one hand say that we're wasteful, that

we've gone into debt, and on the other hand say that we don't spend

enough money in these areas of health care and education and providing

the safety net for people. What we've achieved is a balance. But you're

out there promising more money for these things. At the same time, in

here you're criticizing us for the deficit we have.

MR. NICOLSON: When did Canada's recession end?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, it's ended in British Columbia. We're in a growth rate of about....

MR. NICOLSON: January.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. the member for Nelson-Creston

will come to order. All hon. members in the committee will be given

every opportunity to participate in the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This debate is obviously going to continue

for the next one, two or three years as we continue to grow, and the

members opposite are going to have to continually reappraise what they

have been saying now and look at the success we are achieving, because

it's working.

The suggestion that this government somehow caused the international

recession hasn't washed with anybody. We had the most difficult task in

the country to deal with — the most difficult problem because of our

resource dependency. Everybody understands that. And we faced up to the

toughest challenge. The people of B.C. faced up. They can take a lot of

pride, because while some people were just standing around criticizing

and trying to whip up demonstrations — not to be part of the problem

but against the government for political purposes — the ordinary

British Columbians were facing up to it, and they've done it. They

accepted it, and now they're starting to see it working. They're seeing

investment and they're seeing business, and they'll continue to see it

this year and next year, and they'll continue to see it from then on,

because all of the things we have done — some with great difficulty;

some have been very painful decisions — are working. And that is why

today we can go and we can say to people: "Look, you can come and

invest in British Columbia and create jobs. The tax cuts are

sustainable. They're not just something to attract you now. Here's what

we've done. There are our public spending estimates." These are

sustainable, but other governments that didn't attest to it are going

to have some trouble. The other governments that didn't face the

problem are going to have trouble. Their people are going to face

trouble this year, next year and the year after. And you'll start to

see that.

So I don't mind the introduction of the Manitoba model into this

Legislature as the ideal governmental policy for the times, and the

comparing of results of what's happening in Manitoba and here. I'm

going to be watching very closely over the next couple of years what

happens in Manitoba and what's happening in British Columbia. I'm glad

the Leader of the Opposition has made that his yardstick and where his

spiritual guidance is coming from as far as policies is concerned,

because, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that our policies have been

correct. We did not run from the problem when we were faced with it

in '82 and '83 and '84. We didn't run; we faced it. I can remember when we

introduced the compensation stabilization program — oh, it was such a

wicked program; oh, it was terrible; how could you put those limits on?

At that time the limits were 8 to 12 percent. But because we recognized

that we had a problem and had compensation increases which provided no

extra service — nice for the person who got it, but at a time when

miners and loggers and others were losing their jobs because of the

recession.... And I can remember the criticism over there; 8 to 12

— oh, that was awful. It was awful what this government was doing,

putting those sorts of limitations on. Today it's more realistic, but

every time there's an adjustment — oh, all of a sudden it's awful

again. But you've got to know that we've been successful, moving into

the Canadian mainstream of costs for public services, where we had

costs that couldn't be supported.

I'd like everyone to make the most money in the world, but it's got

to apply equally across the board — private sector and public sector.

You can't have one group disproportionately getting increases that

aren't afforded and job security which isn't there for others. Quite

frankly, that continues to be a major check and balance for the

taxpayers of British Columbia, and will continue to be. We cannot have

the runaway distortions that we had in the past. As we ease into

cost-competitiveness in compensation with the rest of the

country.... It hasn't been abrupt, but we're easing into it. We're

no longer unreasonably.... No longer are compensation costs, then,

competing for the direct services that they supply. There's more money

left in the allocation in those budgets for the actual services, the

things that are

[ Page 6739 ]

required for people — or maybe the amount of money directly for

people — so that it isn't all eaten up by those who are hired to

deliver the service. It hasn't been unrealistic. It's been very

equitable. I want to say it's a permanent part of this government's

policies and will continue to be. I would suggest that it would be

folly.... The Leader of the Opposition has suggested in the past

that they'd take it off — that he doesn't believe in the CSP program.

Because that's an important element of making sure that more money goes

to those in need rather than those delivering the service.

All of these areas of having to do those sorts of things were not

easy choices to make and not easy to do, but the government did them.

And because we've done that, we're now able to have a more competitive

tax structure. And because we've got that, we're going to get the

investment and the jobs. And we're going to continue to travel. It's

nonsense for anyone to suggest that we can have a little internal

economy with a wall around it and that all the things will be done in

here. You couldn't support the standard of living our people can

achieve and the one I want to see them have with that sort of

nonsensical financial policy. You're going to have to have external

investment and external trade, along with investment by our own people

and our own trade, in order to provide jobs for British Columbians.

We're at a geographic disadvantage in this country, shipping west to

east. With a small consuming market here, our distance to the larger

Canadian market makes it very difficult to compete. But we are at the

geographic centre as far as the Pacific Rim is concerned. Therefore

we've got to concentrate on the most logical market in which we have an

advantage, and that we are doing.

Mr. Chairman, there was one other area I wanted to mention, but I

haven't got the note. I'll bring it up when I next get up to speak.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We have some very special people visiting us

in the precincts today. Sister Eileen Pautler of the Cloverdale

Catholic School is here with 33 of her grade 7 students, and I would

ask the members to please make them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: First of all, with reference to the

article that

the Premier is quoting as part of his research for debate on these

estimates, nobody has ever suggested in this party or, I assume, in

that party that we limit investment to investments that come from

British Columbia or Canada. That would be ridiculous, as any first-year

economics students could tell you and have obviously told him. It

doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that if there is confidence in the economy

locally — on the part of the people who provide goods and services here

in British Columbia to the people who live here and work here, as well

as goods for export — then we are going to attract investment from

overseas. I'm told by investors that the criteria for investing in a

particular economy are policy stability, stability with respect to

taxes and government charges, and labour relations stability, which is

a key element. What the Premier has been doing over the last several

years is totally fouling up the kinds of things that could attract

investment to British Columbia.

That's a part of the problem. People in British Columbia have voted

against this government by keeping their savings in the bank. We have

one of the highest savings rates in Canada right here in British

Columbia, because people are not prepared to invest in the climate of

uncertainty that this Premier has created in this province. If our own

people, who are most familiar with the situation in British Columbia,

are unwilling to invest, or to seek partners from overseas in joint

ventures and that type of thing, then offshore investors are certainly

not going to come here. Look at the projects....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They won't come here because of you guys who supported FIRA.

[4:30]

MR. SKELLY: I think the Minister of International Trade and

Investment must be the minister with the least to do of any minister in

the current cabinet. Investment has been steering clear of the province

of British Columbia. They've been skipping over British Columbia and

going to the provinces in eastern Canada.

The Premier also mentioned the compensation stabilization program.

Anybody who reads Hansard will know that we voted against that

legislation for the simple reason that it was unfair, that it directed

its impact against certain citizens of British Columbia rather than

sharing the burden equally. We were not against, by the way, the

stabilization of wage demands. We think that that's an absolute

necessity in any economy and in any sector. In fact — and I'm going to

give something else for the Premier to attack — in other countries,

such as Australia, accords have been reached among trade unions,

government and industry which have had the effect of lowering wage

demands.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know what you're talking about. What a lot of garbage! Go there and find out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As you have heard before, all hon. members will be given a chance to participate in the debate.

MR. SKELLY: There are ways of achieving stabilization of

compensation — not by ramming and jamming it down the throats of

employees, not by coercion, which this government seems to use when

negotiation will do. It has been achieved elsewhere by accords among

workers, government and industry. In the same way stabilization of

public sector wages across this country has been achieved not by

ramming it down the throats of employers and employees in the public

sector, but by negotiating the stabilization and the reduction of

compensation demands, both in the public sector and in the private

sector. It's been achieved in other provinces of this country without

any loss of employment in the public sector.

Now mechanisms have been developed — attrition, that kind of thing.

But when governments seek to cooperate as good employers with their

employees rather than to coerce them, then those employees respond, as

I have said, in the way that Canadians always do in hard times: they

seek solutions. They join together with the employers to seek common

solutions to the problem. Nobody in a democratic society, as British

Columbia is, wants to be forced to do something.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

[ Page 6740 ]

If the government seeks to cooperate with them, they don't mind

joining in that effort, provided the effort and the burden are shared

equally. That's not what the Premier did here in British Columbia.

Instead, he rammed it down the throats of our employees in the public

sector and created those serious problems he talked about, with people

demonstrating in the streets and that kind of thing. It happened in no

other province in Canada. No other province in Canada had the kind of

reaction that this Premier had to his compensation stabilization

program. Yet if you check the statistics, Mr. Chairman, you will find

that most of the provinces — in fact all of the provinces in Canada —

have lowered the level of compensation increases in line....

AN HON. MEMBER: Follow the leader.

MR. SKELLY: No. In fact, it was taking place before this

province suddenly got interested in their program. When the Premier

talks about 12 percent being much too high, it was because he didn't

realize that this trend was taking place all across Canada, and in fact

he followed the trend rather than leading it, which is typical of this

government in British Columbia. Talk about building a wall around this

province; this government doesn't look to see what's happening outside

of British Columbia, to see what has been achieved by cooperation

rather than the kind of confrontation that this government has

attempted to generate in this province between employers, employees and

government.

Now the Premier talks as if the policy of Social Credit is to share

poverty. He says that if people are suffering in the private sector out

there, in the forest industry, in the mining industry.... If people are

suffering out there, then we should make the public sector suffer as

well. Share the suffering. Share the poverty, which this Premier has in

part created. He said: "Look at all these resource industries. The

reason B.C. is in such economic straits right now is because the

resource industries have suffered." Other provinces have mining

industries. Other provinces have forest industries. None has suffered

as badly as this province has.

This province hasn't recovered, when some of those other provinces

are in a process of recovery and are producing positive statistics. The

reason this province has been held back is because of the economic

policies of this minister and the incompetence of his government.

That's why I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier hasn't referred

to it.... He's referred to a lot of clippings from local newspapers,

and letters that were written by the Manitoba Minister of Finance. But

that's why I mentioned the secondary forest products manufacturing

sector in the province of British Columbia that the government is doing

virtually nothing about and nothing to assist.

If we want to develop more jobs in the forest industry, if we want

to attract more investment to the forest industry, then the place we

should be doing it is in the secondary manufacturing end of the

industry, where we are putting together components for finished

products, where we are actually producing finished products. The

government has paid very little attention, if any, to that sector.

Now I'm a little bit worried that they might pay some attention to

it, and it's going to collapse in the same way as the other sectors the

government has prioritized. But what I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is

that the government hasn't done what a responsible, competent and able

government would have done to protect British Columbians from the worst

impact of the recession. Instead they have attempted to share the

poverty, share the suffering.

The Premier congratulates the citizens of British Columbia for

coming through it in such grand style. I wish he could see some of

those thousands of people who line up for food baskets in food lines in

the city of Vancouver — in fact in virtually every community in the

province of British Columbia. The food bank in Vancouver distributes

more food than similar food banks all across Canada in a single day.

The problem is right here in British Columbia, and a lot of those

people that have been humiliated by this government are people who have

lived in this province for years — my constituents. People get together

at the unemployment action centre in Port Alberni who have been living

there for generations. People with 20 years' seniority in the forest

industry are now without any prospect of employment because of this

government's irresponsibility, because of this government's lack of

competence and lack of good management, because of this government's

lack of foresight. They end up on the welfare lines and in the food

lines around this province.

This Premier hasn't done anything worthwhile for those people by

sacking public sector employees. This Premier hasn't done anything for

them, anything to their benefit, except perhaps to eliminate the jobs

of some of their spouses or family members who might otherwise have

helped to see them through the recession. What he's done, of course,

Mr. Chairman, through his restraint program is taken away their homes

and the assets that they worked all of their lives to accumulate; he

has taken away everything that they ever worked and saved for. This

Premier, with his restraint program and his mismanagement of the

economy, has caused them unbelievable suffering. All of his efforts to

reduce the size of the public sector and to ignore the need for job

creation and the need to diversify the economy have done nothing to

help that unemployed forest industry worker who has seen his job dry up

and his job prospects dry up under the Social Credit government's

mismanagement.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've been listening with a great deal of

interest to the Leader of the Opposition display his total ignorance of

the international marketplace. I have listened to him not only today,

but indeed on previous occasions, hold up that great country,

Australia, as an example of how labour and management and the

government should cooperate. I don't know where the Leader of the

Opposition is getting his material from, and I don't know whether he

has ever been to Australia. But I happened to spend some portion of my

vacation there in January, and paid a fair amount of attention to what

is happening in that great country. As many of you know, I have a great

affinity for that country, which shares the same Queen as I share and

whose roots came from the same country as a lot of Canadians come from.

So I have a great affinity for that country. In the international

marketplace we are partners, supplying many of the same materials to

many of the same customers in the world. So I have a reasonably good

working knowledge of what's going on.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It makes me laugh, Mr. Chairman, to listen to the Leader of the Opposition hold up the

[ Page 6741 ]

Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, as the leading example in the world of

getting along with labour and with management. When I was there in

January, there were 22 ships outside of Newcastle harbour. And what

were they waiting for? They were waiting to load coal for the

international marketplace. But what was the problem? The railway in New

South Wales was closed down because of a strike. The very day I left