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, MARCH 13, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5253 ]

CONTENTS

Workplace Act (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Segarty.

Introduction and first reading –– 5253

Oral Questions

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 5253

Government aid to Ethiopia. Ms. Sanford –– 5254

Education funding. Mr. Rose –– 5254

Post-secondary education funding. Mr. Nicolson –– 5255

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 5255

Mr. Mitchell –– 5258

Mr. Michael –– 5261

Mrs. Wallace –– 5263

Mr. Macdonald –– 5266

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5269

Mr. Hanson –– 5271

Division –– 5274

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are

my sister Kathy and her husband Tom — Kathy and Tom Kirkley. They're

visiting this great province from the province of Ontario and the city

of Toronto. I wish the House would make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Although it doesn't apply to all political

parties I know, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is always

involved in the process of developing policy which will benefit the

people of the province. Today we have with us in the gallery a number

of those hard-working people who are involved in policy development. I

would like the House to welcome Johanna den Hertog, the chairperson of

the policy review committee, and a number of other policy development

people, including Bruce Ralston, Marjorie Martin, Cliff Stainsby, Peggy

Mika, Jean Lawrence, Jeff Hoskins, Doug Broome, Sharon Olsen, Bob

Forshaw, Jim Greis Haber-Otto, and Mike Manley Casimir. I wish the

House would make them all welcome this afternoon.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask all members to

join me and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) in welcoming

two outstanding citizens of our province. They are the publishers of

the Record , a newspaper published in Gold River, and they are my cousins: Bert and Joan Donovan.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery is Mr.

Doug Bennett from Vancouver Centre. He is the band leader of Doug and

the Slugs — a Bennett who went straight.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery we have

the pleasure of a lovely lady, Lynne Upton, who is the president of the

Social Credit constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. I would ask the

members to make her welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: It's my honour today to have visiting from New

Denver in my riding a leading, honoured and distinguished person in the

outdoor and environmental fields, Colleen McCrory. She is accompanied

by Mr. Dan Bowditch, Mr. Murray Rankin and Mr. Paul George, all of whom

are directors of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. I understand

they will be meeting with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton)

and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) later

today. We wish them welcome.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would like to take the opportunity to

introduce two individuals from the constituency of North Okanagan, Mr.

and Mrs. Victor Heller of Vernon, along with their nephew Dick

Sutherland from the Victoria area. I would like to welcome them to the

House.

MR. GABELMANN: I too would like to welcome Joan and Bert Donovan from

Gold River. In addition, I would like the House to welcome Mr. Rob Mingay, who

is in the gallery. Rob is newly with the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Introduction of Bills

WORKPLACE ACT

Hon. Mr. Segarty presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Workplace Act.

Bill 4 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.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Premier. On March 11,

the Premier stated that he had no knowledge of the remarks of his

former principal secretary and campaign chairman, Patrick Kinsella,

regarding a number of public opinion polls directed from his office. I

have a tape of Mr. Kinsella's remarks at Simon Fraser with the

marketing course there, and I would ask the Premier if he would care to

review this particular tape publicly. I would like to play it, but I

know that's probably contrary to the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: It is, hon. member; almost as contrary as such a long question.

MR. HANSON: The question is: would he care to review this tape in public for the people of this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: I'll be happy to table this at the conclusion of question period.

Mr. Speaker, a new question. I'm prepared to table relevant portions

of the transcript of Mr. Kinsella's remarks on that particular occasion

to jog the Premier's memory, because he indicated to this House that he

has no knowledge of that particular event. Mr. Kinsella plainly refers

to a massive sample of voters which he ordered within two weeks of

joining the Premier's staff. Has the Premier determined if this poll

was paid for by the taxpayers?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is pursuing a line of

questioning that I took as notice the other day and was going to reply

to after question period. But since the member has introduced it, I

would be pleased to deal with his questions.

[2:15]

His first question was, were any of the polls cited by Mr. Kinsella

paid for using taxpayers' money, including off-budget funds controlled

by cabinet, and the answer is no. In particular, was the massive sample

of voters launched by Mr. Kinsella about two weeks after assuming the

office of deputy minister to the Premier paid for with tax dollars? The

answer is no. Were any polling services performed by Decima Research —

and this is for the government? The answer is yes. Public Affairs

International? No, because it's not a polling firm. Goldfarb

Consultants? Yes. Canadian Gallup Poll? No. Canadian Facts? No.

[ Page 5254 ]

The next question: does the government now have a relationship with

Mr. Pezim, Patrick Kinsella and Progressive Strategies Ltd.? The answer

is no.

MR. HANSON: A new question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. When

Mr. Kinsella was employed in the Premier's office, was he then

conducting these polls for the Social Credit Party?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Kinsella does not conduct polls, but in

my office, as the principal secretary — as in every other Premier's

office across the country — is a political appointment, he would be

aware of what the party is doing.

MR. SKELLY: Paid by the taxpayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition, who often

isn't available for press comment during the day, chirped from his seat

that it was paid for by the taxpayers. I've already said that is not

true. I would not want the Leader of the Opposition to be the only

member in here that did not hear the answer to the question when I gave

it to the first member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, so the House is clear: is the

Premier telling the House that Mr. Kinsella, whose salary was paid for

by the taxpayer, was conducting political research for the Social

Credit Party and the various polls that the Premier has indicated were

paid for by the taxpayer — for example, Decima and so on? Was Mr.

Kinsella involved with them as well?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Government research within the government

is developed by the ministries. Mr. Kinsella's relationship with having

knowledge of what the party was doing was a confidential relationship

so he could report to me.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier then

prepared to table before this House those particular polling documents

with the data and the results of the massive polling that Mr. Kinsella

carried out? Is he prepared to table those in this House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, the polling that the member

refers to, from the speech — which he found very entertaining and

informational to himself — that Mr. Kinsella made sometime earlier was

not paid for, as his question asks, by the government. Then it would

not be information to be brought to this House. If the question is

related to government research that was done in previous years.... As

to whether any of that information would be placed before the House,

that question has been taken as notice and is under consideration,

MR. HANSON: In pursuing that particular question, you now

have had, Mr. Premier, an opportunity to reflect on that. Those polls

are shelved in the government confines. Will you now make those

available to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: That question, hon. member, which has been taken

on notice, ought not be asked again. I believe it was answered in the

previous question.

GOVERNMENT AID TO ETHIOPIA

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Health. The people of British Columbia have now contributed nearly $4

million to relieve the famine in Ethiopia. Has the government

reconsidered its position not to contribute to the non-governmental

agencies coordinating relief fund-raising here in British Columbia?

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

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, officials with the office of David

MacDonald, coordinator for African famine, report that apart from the

few established grants through the agricultural aid program, there has

been no specific commitment for Ethiopian relief from the provincial

government. Is the minister aware that by directing a significant

contribution through B.C. non-governmental aid agencies a provincial

contribution would have a far greater impact than if the government

contributes through another government, as the minister indicated they

were considering?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, no, I'm not aware of that. I'm

not sure if the information and evidence would support that. I suppose

if it were selected very carefully it might support that, but I think

there's an argument on the other side.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's quite clear that if the

federal government matches dollar-for-dollar what's raised in British

Columbia, and British Columbia contributes toward that federal aid,

then the non-governmental agencies in British Columbia would not be

able to receive the $4 million matching grant that other provinces are

arranging for their non-governmental agencies. Is the minister prepared

to make the commitment that British Columbia will match the moneys

raised by the non-governmental agencies for Ethiopian famine relief?

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

The fiscal framework package in the summer of 1983 contained this

sentence: "The 1985 fiscal framework will be recalculated for each

district, taking into account any salary increases and the changes in

enrolment levels used to calculate the 1984 budgets." A letter written

to the chairpersons of all the boards in the province and dated March 8

contains this line: "The guideline amount is based on September 1984

salaries. When the 1985-86 budgets are finalized, no adjustments to

these salaries will be made, whatever the results of bargaining past,

present or planned." I'd like to ask the minister, since this is

obviously a contradictory set of statements: when were the boards first

informed of this apparent reversal in policy?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the

material — and I don't doubt for a moment that the member has made an

accurate reference. The statement that we made in the preparation of

both the transitional and the full fiscal 1985-86 budget.... I have

been saying for several months that we would not accommodate within the

budgets

[ Page

5255 ]

any proposed or negotiated increases for that

18-month period. If I'm not mistaken, reference is being made to those

salary items which were negotiated. Secondly, I believe that the amount

which teachers were awarded has been included in the calculation of the

average teacher's salary.

Now with respect to the other part, I would like to take the balance

of the question on notice, and if I can get a copy of the material or a

page reference to it, I will bring an answer back to the House.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the page is page 13 — ironically for

the boards. As late as March 11 the minister told this House that he'd

await Mr. Peck's rulings on teachers' salaries before making a decision

as to whether or not he'd make provision for fiscal framework

alterations to allow the boards to pay the increase. On March 8 he said

just the opposite in a letter. So there's a lot of confusion around —

abounding — and I'd like the minister to clarify these other two sets

of contradictory conditions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it's been made abundantly

clear for a number of months that any amount which has been awarded,

either through a negotiated settlement or a mediated settlement which

has been approved by the CSP office, must be absorbed by the amount of

money which has been incorporated in each of the operating budgets of

the 75 school districts. With respect to '85-86, the same terms,

conditions, rules and regulations apply. To date, I know of only one

agreement which has been made; it involves the Alberni School District.

Those decisions — and I made reference to them earlier — were Howe

Sound.... That one was negotiated, went to the CSP office, and was

returned to the parties. The second decision which was rendered by the

CSP office involved the Surrey School District, which was arbitrated

and again returned to the parties. Since that time, I do not know of

any decision which has yet been made.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. NICOLSON: Last night the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications tabled some figures, along with his letter.

It shows that public school enrolment figures have dropped about 8.4

percent since this government was elected; but he's using the drop in

high school enrolment to call on universities to cut and slash and

mutilate programs.

Given that our university participation rate is 25 percent below the

Canadian average, not 8.7 percent, and that only 7 percent of students

from areas like mine, up in the interior, outside the metropolitan

area, get to participate in university education, when will the

minister decide to abandon his program of university cuts and bring in

a policy that provides equal educational opportunity for all students

in British Columbia, equal to what you can get in the rest of Canada,

particularly for those outside the metropolitan areas?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we're finding that of those who

graduate from high school — this includes all areas of the province —

the number going on to post-secondary education in university programs,

whether at Selkirk College or at the University of British Columbia,

has been steadily increasing, and now runs at about 53 percent.

The way in which people in the non-metropolitan areas have their opportunity

to take university-level programs is through the 15 regional colleges which

exist. They were built in various communities for precisely that purpose. For

specialized programs and upper-level programs, most people will need to come

to one of the metropolitan campuses to finish off, but for those who are satisfied

with general programs, the Open Learning Institute is available so that they

can go all the way to their degree through the Open Learning Consortium.

The calendar was published just last year. There are about 250

courses in it, and the Open Learning Institute, in terms of numbers of

people who are registered, is now the second-largest institution in

British Columbia. There were many, I might say, who were against this.

It was opposed by Pacific Press, as I recall; it was opposed by the

three universities; it was opposed by the opposition. It was opposed by

everyone but this government, and now it's one of the greatest

successes in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair, having been advised

previously that the member for Skeena wishes to rise under standing

order 35, now recognizes the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of

standing order 35 to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for

the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public

importance; namely, this statement of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland):

"There's no doubt about it, competition for timber

under forest licences and tree-farm licences ended when we became fully

allocated in most of the province. Small business licences are the only

area with competition, and I suppose we could change that. For

practical purposes it makes more sense to have the companies sort out

their operating areas rather than involve the Forest Service.

Competition is a thing of the past; it's ancient history."

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as is the custom we will consider

the matter raised by the member, and bring a response back to the House

at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's a delight to take my place in

voicing a few opinions and observations. Traditionally, the debate on

the throne speech gives members an opportunity to bring forward

concerns that are perhaps parochial, ones only in high focus in their

own constituencies. I trust that that traditional opportunity will be

extended to me today, because the great constituency of Chilliwack does

have some faithful and supporting constituents who have seen fit, over

these past 13 years, to return this member time after time. In return

for that confidence they expect to be fairly represented, and I wish

not to disappoint them in that regard.

The constituency of Chilliwack, in the past number of years and more

recently, has fared considerably well in spite of what we have heard

referred to in this House so many times as a national economic

downturn. One of the reasons for not an exemption of, but perhaps a

diminished impact on, my

[ Page 5256 ]

constituency in this regard is that we are an

agricultural community; and thankfully, those who are involved in the

production of food have a very nearly guaranteed level of consumption.

All have to eat; therefore all must be provided for; therefore those

who are in the field of providing for them have a fairly consistent and

constant demand factor. As a result, they have been supported through

economic strength in these days, for which they are exceedingly

thankful.

However, having said that, they look to their member who by

coincidence happens to be responsible for that sector of the economy —

for consideration perhaps above and beyond what might be expected were

the member not responsible for agriculture. It has been difficult for

me, as their member, to play that role which I learned first to play in

this House, being as impartial as I knew how in those days. I now have

to learn to represent the farm community in my constituency, first as

the Minister of Agriculture and then through that extra responsibility

of being their member. It hasn't always been easy. It has sometimes

been frustrating. I trust that I've been able to accomplish it on a

very acceptable basis; if I haven't, I could not expect to be returned

when we ask them to support this member again.

The constituency of Chilliwack has needs. There's no question about

it. Because a high percentage of our population is involved in the food

industry, it means that naturally we have a lower percentage involved

in commerce and industry. When we come to divide the tax burden for a

municipality or a constituency like mine, we do not have the advantages

that come from high assessment areas in commerce and industry. We must

seek to generate all of our local funding through the farm assessment,

which, as every member in this House knows, is the sector of our

economy that receives preferential treatment when it comes to tax

assessment. That's a great advantage to the farmer, but a great

disadvantage when it comes to a municipality that is expected to

preserve for the future this great expanse of agricultural land.

I have been scratching my brow — and anything else I can scratch —

to see whether or not we could come up with some constructive way of

finding a balance so that those residents of the rest of the province

could perhaps share in the disproportionate load which people in my

constituency carry in this business of the cost of preserving

agricultural land for the future. They have this concern. They voice it

to me every once in a while. Every time we meet, their elected

representatives at council level ask what progress has been made in

this regard. It's a difficult question for me to answer, because so far

we have not seen the light at the end of the tunnel in that question.

I stand to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne which His

Honor delivered here not too many days ago. The reason I stand to

support this speech ... the reasons are many; however, I will only be

able to address a few of them.

I think paramount in the list would be the reference to economic

renewal and the reference to taxation review. As you look at the

speech, you don't see them in juxtaposition. They are not closely

positioned in the speech itself. They are several pages apart. But they

are intricately related one to the other, and economic renewal and

taxation review go hand in hand. They must be addressed in order to

provide a foundation for economic recovery.

I notice that economic recovery is a word that's in vogue across the

floor. In order to have economic recovery, we must establish a

foundation upon which recovery is possible.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been very easy to

have allowed the foundation to crumble, and recovery would not have the

hope that it has today. It would have been very easy to allow the

demand of the citizenry to come first and foremost and the reference to

the revenue strength of our province not be referred to at all. We'd be

taken in to the same practice as was subscribed to by the federal

government, in that in order to be a nice guy you could say yes to

every demand, but when it came time to pay the bill for that demand not

have sufficient strength in the taxpayer to be able to cover the costs

of the commitments that were made through demand.

I want you to know that the federal government is today in sad

shape. They're in sad shape because they are going to be spending

one-third of every tax dollar that we send them to cover the cost of

previous ill-advised, uncontrolled spending.

That's not the bad part. The bad

part is that since we are now

sending one-third of every future tax dollar to central banking in

order to fund previous extravagances, it means that we only have

two-thirds of every tax dollar. The whole dollar has to be collected,

Mr. Speaker, but only two-thirds of it can now go toward what you and I

might call economic recovery or economic rebuilding.

I am thankful that there is a government in British Columbia that

could see the end from the beginning and had the strength to say no.

Regardless of how rational and how reasonable the demands may have

been, we had the strength to say no. We didn't have strength enough to

say no often enough. As a result, we still had to resort to that

unforgivable practice of having to borrow funds to pay operational

costs on a year-to-year basis.

Just in operations alone, Mr. Speaker, by the time we finish the

fiscal year that we are just now completing we will be in the range of

$3.5 billion and $3.75 billion that had to be borrowed in order to

satisfy the demands — just, reasonable and rational demands — of our

citizenry, but for which that same citizenry is going to have to pick

up the tab in the future. They're going to have to pick up the tab in

addition to covering the current operational costs of any future year.

I'm not too smart, but I've got this figured out. If we had

difficulty in covering the expenses in any given year, how in the name

of the ever-loving blue-eyed world are we going to expect in the future

to be able to generate enough money to cover the operational costs of

that given year and still pick up the sack for previous extravagances

and, in addition to that, not just cover the cost of what we spent in

former years but to cover the cost of interest on that former borrowing

year after year after year?

As I just described to you a little earlier, in the federal scene

it's going to take one-third of every dollar we send them just to do

what I just described to you. I hope that there's never a government in

British Columbia that will allow it to go to that depth on operating

expenses.

Now if we had to borrow money in order to develop strength in an

economy, which money was going to be returned or at least a hope of

that money being returned, then I could say a reasonable and thoughtful

yes. But for straight operating expenses, the answer has to be no.

There was a government who in 1982 woke up to the fact — and not

that suddenly, I might add — that unless some control was placed on

uncontrolled spending we could very easily enter the same arena as our

federal counterparts. A

[ Page 5257 ]

policy of controlled spending was adopted, and,

that policy having been adopted, this government was able to lay a

foundation upon which economic recovery is more possible than it would

have been if we had simply allowed the demands to dictate the

expenditures.

Aside from that, if we had listened, in addition to the demands that

were made by society, to the unreasonable and thoughtless demands that

came from across the floor, we would not have the foundation that we

have today upon which we can expect a reasonable rebuilding of our

economy. No. Were the members opposite reasonable in talking to the

general public about controlled spending? No. They were against

controlled spending. They lost an election on it.

But more than that, they came back to the House, and when there were

measures introduced in this House which would empower a government to

control its spending, where was the vote? The vote from the opposite

side was: "Hey, hey, hey, let's us be good guys and let's let the

government be painted as the bad guys because they're going to have to

say no in the interests of restraint. We'll make it sound like we're

good guys and we'll say, 'give them more. Give education more. Give

health a little more. Give everybody a little more."' Any request that

came along — shovel it out of the back of the truck. It was

unreasonable, sir. And the sad

part is that there was a sector of our

society that was quite willing to believe that what the opposition

suggested was possible: that you can continually borrow, and that you

can meet the expectation of every demand. I want you to know it's not

possible. As a result we have today, because of the foundation that was

laid, a reasonable expectancy for economic renewal.

[2:45]

How does the taxation review come into this? I want you to know that

in my little constituency, Chilliwack, which I referred to a little

earlier, I was summoned to a meeting in the Evergreen Hall in which

there were 240 of our taxpayers gathered. They weren't kindly at all —

I would have thought that according to the returns at least two-thirds

of them were my supporters. These were taxpayers who said: "What are

you going to do to reduce the tax load that we presently are carrying?

If you continue to move in the direction in which you are moving, we

can see no other alternative but for you to send us an even greater tax

bill year after year after year. If you continue to do that and we

cannot pay the tax burden today, where will that leave us in the

future?" They quoted numbers to me about the number of them who were

experiencing financial difficulties, to the extent that they were in

soft receivership, some of them; some of them were in hard receivership

— I don't care what you call it. Some of them were in bankruptcy — I

don't care what you call it. They simply couldn't pay the bills, and

they said: "We cannot possibly experience a higher tax burden."

I believed them. I faithfully carried that message back to this

government. I believe this government took those words at face value

because they had had similar messages from their own areas.

The question was easy to hear but difficult to answer. Could we

continue to give heed to increasing demands for public spending and at

the same time have a reducing source of revenue? Or would we have to

make an adjustment in one place or the other? The answer is simple:

you'd have to either have a higher tax bill or lower spending. Since a

higher tax bill was not possible, there was only one option and that

option was controlled government spending.

Sir, if we had listened to the exhortations and the irresponsible

demands of the members opposite, we could not be in a position of

renewal, as we are today. Sure we had to borrow, but we borrowed as

little as we possibly could. The opposition opposite tried to generate,

out there in the society, a spirit of discontent, and that spirit of

discontent was sought to be seeded in a public who were unwilling to

contribute more of their tax dollars but who were encouraged to believe

that you can expect more even though you contribute less. What folly!

Enough of that. I want to talk about some of the other incentives

that are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne about which I can get

excited. It talked about harnessing the skills and the talents of the

people — in other words, catch the creativity of the populace. I've

said it so many times to the farm and the processing community: if we

wish to expand the consumption of our product — which is, by the way,

the only way we're going to expand the agricultural economy — then we

must put whatever our product is into whatever size or shape is more

appealing to the consumer than what we're presenting to them today. I

said to them that somewhere in any of the heads out there — whether

they be producers, processors, distributors, retailers or consumers —

is an idea ready to be born which would affect that given commodity and

put it in a brand-new size and shape which would catch the imagination

of the consumer and increase consumption. After all, it wasn't that

many years ago that we didn't have any ice cream in our society; ice

cream was introduced at a world's fair in Chicago. That ice cream

caught the imagination of the populace, and the consumption of milk

products escalated.

I say to the potato people: what makes us believe that because we

presently have boiled potatoes, mashed potatoes, fried potatoes, string

potatoes, french fries, potato chips and instant potatoes, we have

already achieved the last, the greatest and the most desirable form in

which potatoes can be presented to a consumer? Somewhere out there,

among all those potato growers — quite likely it will be born in the

mind of someone while he's driving his tractor — is a concept that

says: here is a brand-new way to present potatoes to the consuming

public. It's the right way to go, and I think this is the way to

harness the skills and the talents of the people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Let me tell you, Mr. Minister, I've got you stirred up now. I can get you to the altar pretty quick.

If we can catch the imagination in every segment, in every commodity

in agriculture, can you believe the amount of growth that we could

experience there?

The next thing the speech suggests we need to do is encourage

exports. There are exports out there, but not just for the taking. You

have to go and get them, but they're there.

Let me tell you of an experience I had recently, when I went to

China in response to an invitation to speak to mainland China's major

kickoff of their new five-year agri-program. They are spending 30

billion new dollars on their agri-program, and they invited this little

minister to come and be their keynote speaker for that occasion. I

accepted. When I went, I thought it might be a good idea to take some

industry representatives with me. And they came — at their own expense,

I might add. As a result, we had the opportunity to visit some of the

production units. One of the production

[ Page 5258 ]

units that we visited was their dairy. Their

dairies used to be all communal dairies; they are now called corporate

dairies. They readied one of them for visitors and allowed us to go and

see what their dairies were doing — not to report here today what we

found, but to report the result of that meeting. We stood in the yard

of their milk-processing plant and spoke to the head director of their

dairy division.

The conversation, through interpreters, went something like this. We

said to them: "What do your cows produce?" They said: "Our cows produce

approximately 4,500 litres a year." We said: "Fine. That's very good."

The question was reversed and they said: "What volume of milk do your

cows in British Columbia produce?" We were a little shy about giving

the answer, and the reason we were shy is that you don't ever embarrass

a host in Asia. So we said: "On average our cattle produce about

7,500." They raised their eyebrows, and the question came back: "We

didn't ask what the average was. What does number one cow produce?" Mr.

Aylard, who used to be the chairman of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture and happened to be their representative with us, said:

"Well, our number one cow produces 13,500 litres of milk per year." And

they immediately said: "How much for number one cow?"

We would be silly to sell number one cow, but we might be willing to

sell offspring of number one cow. Shortly after that visit a group from

that country came to British Columbia, went to the various farms,

selected their donor cows, and have already concluded and transported

back to mainland China the first shipment of embryo for transplant; so

the technology we have here is being sent to mainland China. It was

November when I was there and the approach was made; this is March, but

the conclusion was in February when they actually took the goods home.

Not a great number of dollars yet in terms of success, but

identification of an export market that had not been tapped heretofore

but which is available to us; and if we go after it aggressively, we

can capture it. To give you an idea, the population of mainland China

is over a billion. Some say it's 1.032 billion; it changes day by day,

I understand. As soon as you get too many zeros behind a number, it

fogs the mind; you don't really get a concept. But to give you an idea

of the size of that market, it is five times the size of the United

States, 50 times the size of Canada, and 500 times the size of British

Columbia. That's the size of the potential of that market out there. We

have tapped only one area, which I've referred to; only in one

commodity.

The opportunities are there in other areas as well. We have a range

seeder that was designed and is produced right here in British

Columbia. It has its assembly line in my town, Chilliwack. The

representative from that range seeder company was with us in China.

Once they had seen the videotape of what that piece of equipment can

accomplish, they were so interested in it that they were willing to buy

not one of those pieces of equipment, but willing to put in a entire

assembly line in their country.

In identifying potential for export, we need, to be cognizant of the

aims and goals of mainland China. They are not to be totally dependent

upon some foreign country for their supply. The aim of mainland China

is to become self-sufficient. If we could be the supplier of brood

stock and embryos, the supplier of technology.... Even if no dependency

is established, even if a good working trade relationship is

established, think of the opportunity when you identify a market that

is 500 times the size of us. We could ship them every cow in the

province, and you'd scarcely be able to find them in the population

over there. Increased exports: it's identified in this document, and I

support it.

It says that in order to assist us in economic renewal, perhaps we

need to think in terms of training our young people as far as

employment training is concerned. This is when I begin to feel good

about training people for specific employment opportunities. For

instance — and this is the member for Chilliwack dreaming — I can see

that we need in British Columbia a college of agriculture, one that

would at first perhaps be equivalent to Olds in Alberta; perhaps

eventually equivalent to Guelph in Ontario. In British Columbia we have

a diversified approach to agricultural education: there's a little bit

of it in one college, and that college competes with another one;

there's a little bit of it there, and there's a little drip and a drab

in another college, each one very fragmented. But there's no single

concerted agricultural college opportunity to study things like those

my friend refers to every time he walks past me — marketing boards,

marketing awareness, market development; to consider things like value

of quota and its effect economically on a commodity. These are the

kinds of things which need to be studied. I think they should take

place in an agricultural college. I would like to believe that that

agricultural college might even be in Chilliwack. I have to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that I haven't convinced anybody, but I have an idea

that's where it should be. We in Chilliwack are the agricultural centre

of the province, and I think that reasonably it would be a safe place

for this kind of college. Train our young people via employment

training to equip them for the job that's ahead.

[3:00]

It talked about an international food expo. Some time back I had the

opportunity, in my quest to find a proper vehicle to develop marketing

skills within our farming community, to see a trade show — not a PNE,

not a "come and see how big my cabbages are" trade show, but a trade

show in which you said: "This is what we have developed. This is what's

for sale. This is our order book. Bring your chequebook," and trade

takes place. I went to look at one of those at Anuga, in West Germany,

a place where 150,000 buyers went through a trade show in a short

period of six days. I said to myself: is there anything like this in

the new and emerging market called the Pacific Rim? The answer was no.

The next question: should there be? The answer was yes. The next

question: where should it be? The answer was, on the Pacific Rim. If on

the Pacific Rim, why not in B.C.? If in B.C., why not in 1986 when the

entire world is coming? I want you to know I was thrilled to see it in

the document. It's going to happen — pilot program, 1986, and the first

full-fledged one in 1987.

MR. MITCHELL I really enjoyed listening to the Minister of Agriculture

and Food while he was going over some of the myths he and this government continue

to spread. I find it remarkable, for a man who has been in this House for 13

years, that he hasn't been listening to some of the speeches that this

opposition has been making, speeches that go back to when this government came

to power in 1976, when they had a total debt of around $4 billion. Year after

year after year, the present government has continued to borrow on money-losing

programs. It is because of the tactics of the government over the last few years

that we are now pushing $17 billion of debt.

[ Page

5259 ]

I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn't leave the House.

There are a few other points that I would like to review for him,

because he might have been in the House, and he might have been

listening to the speeches, but they were not sinking in. I'm sorry that

the minister is leaving now, because I think it's important that when

you look at some of the debt that has taken place, and when you compare

the speeches that were made by the members on this side of the

House.... If the government had been listening we wouldn't be in the

financial problem we are in right now.

I agree with him 1,000 percent that it is that massive debt that the

federal government got into with the Liberals, and in British Columbia

it was the massive debt that the Social Credit got us into. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I kind of feel for Mr. Mulroney, who has to pick up the mess

that the Liberals left the federal government in, and I know it's the

present Leader of the Opposition in the NDP who will have to pick up

the mess that this government has got this province in, after the next

election. That is one of the problems that we have to face.

I remember my colleague from Nelson, year after year when he kept on

advising this House that if they continued borrowing to build more and

more hydro dams, we would have a surplus of power that we could not

utilize. Everyone laughed at him and said that we were being negative,

negative, negative. Now we have come to that situation. We have that

hydro debt, and we have that surplus of power. Again, that is one of

the messes that this government has got us in, and it's one of the

messes that this Legislature is going to have to come up with positive

suggestions to get out of.

To say that it was this opposition that created the debt in this

province — because we were suggesting to the public that a rich

province like British Columbia could have a better standard of living,

more security, more jobs, more health, more education services — is

foolish. Knowing the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is a very

fine person when he's outside of the House and making political

speeches, he doesn't really believe it, and he knows deep in his heart

that there is a mess, created by the Social Credit government.

I would like to bring something to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and

when you're in caucus you could share this information with the

Minister of Agriculture and Food and some of your other colleagues.

Back in 1980 and 1981, when the opposition went through the budgets

that were presented, and the estimates that were presented with the

throne and budget speeches, this opposition said that we in British

Columbia and the world economy were heading towards a depression. We

said there are going to be some hard times, and we should look at our

expenditures today. We went through those budgets item by item — I'm

not sure of the exact figures that we identified — and we moved

amendments to remove some of that fat out of that budget.

I know one year it was about $80 million. Another year it was $76

million, $77 million, $78 million. I know the total was around $160

million, and that was only for the items that we could easily identify

— items that were a complete waste of taxpayers' taxes. On every

amendment that this opposition presented, the Social Credit government

voted against it.

We predicted what was happening, and we predicted that we should start saving

some of the money while there was still money to be saved. The government continued

to say that.... They just laughed. They laughed at the predictions of surplus

power. They laughed at the predictions of a depression, of hard times. They

laughed at the suggestion that we should be saving some of the money for a rainy

day. They continued to vote against our suggestions, and they were positive

suggestions. Continually we hear from the Social Credit government that we're

negative. If they want to call us negative because we're predicting the

truth, we're pointing out the truth, then I guess it is negative. But I

say that the truth is positive, and we must look at it and review some of the

mistakes that we had made.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have a vote on the throne

speech. I would like to say yes, I am going to support the throne

speech. But after listening to the alternate throne speech prepared and

delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, my vote has to go for that

speech — the alternative speech — because it was positive. It was

positive in the same manner as the points that this opposition pointed

out year after year after year. It was positive because it showed a

direction that British Columbia and Canada must go in.

What it said was that we have to build into British Columbia exactly

what the previous speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder), said when he was bragging about his particular

community. He said that his community was based on providing food to

British Columbians. It was a community that had built its economy on an

internal economy. It hadn't built its whole economy on exports like so

many communities that are in the lumber and the mining industries had

done. But it built an economy of full employment servicing an internal

economy.

In British Columbia, if we are going to have a chance to leave to

our youth and our citizens the feeling of hope, we have to build an

internal economy on the resources that we have. We have to build and

take a positive long-range view of goals for where we are going to go

day by day. And in the alternative throne speech, as presented by the

Leader of the Opposition, he said we have to set a goal in every

community for the creation of jobs. We have to develop in every region

in a manner that we can consult that particular community about what

they are best able to produce and what kind of services they are best

able to provide.

We have to look at it definitely, Mr. Speaker, in a positive way

because we have to build an internal economy on that 70 percent of our

population that is continually employed. Year after year, we cannot

look at short-term solutions without looking at long-term gains. When

the Leader of the Opposition said that we should set up a committee to

tour this province, a committee of members of all sides of the

House.... As the Social Credit government has the majority of the

members in this House, they will have the majority of members on that

committee. But there will also be opposition members on that committee,

and they should go out into all the communities — not a road show, as

cabinet is prepared to do, as outlined in the throne speech, to go here

and there and make political speeches. We want a committee that is

going to do the internal, in-depth studies, consultation of what our

long-term goals should be for full employment. We're in an era where we

can do that. If we don't do it, there is going to be far more violence

out on the street than there is today. There is going to be violence if

we cannot give to the youth of this province, to those who are

unemployed, and to those who are trying to raise a family on welfare,

hope and a sense of security and well-being, and a sense of input into

our society.

[3:15]

I say to the government that we have to do that study and that consultation, because it is needed. The people want it.

[ Page 5260 ]

We can't afford the pleasure of standing up here and taking cheap

political shots, and twisting facts completely out of context — that

the reason we have a debt that has gone from $4 billion to $17 billion

is the opposition, because they were negative. You know it's untrue,

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) knows it's untrue, and

the general public knows it's untrue. I don't say this lightly.

If I can bring it back to the context of my own riding, a large

section of my riding has been based on the harvest of timber. Over the

years from the hills of Sooke, Jordan River and Port Renfrew, millions

and millions of dollars' worth have been taken. It is a big problem,

Mr. Speaker. It was predicted, not in this House, going back to the

thirties and now into the eighties, that we are harvesting the

resources of this province and are not maintaining the ability to

continue that harvest. I have hundreds of thousands of acres in my own

riding — and it's not one of the larger ridings in the province — that

are improperly replanted. In so many cases they were not replanted at

all, and today they are full of what are commonly known as the weed

species. It's been the CCF, the labour members in the past, the NDP

since 1961 who have been saying that we must look at our forest as a

renewable resource, that we must harvest it in a manner to maximize the

production, and we must utilize that production to its highest form.

It's like the Minister of Agriculture, who in his riding has a very

diversified community which is harvesting crops that they plant. We

must look at our forests as crops that we plant and that we harvest. We

must take a different approach than we have used in the past. We must

look at where we're going so there is a future in this industry.

I find it shocking, when I get off the main roads and back into the

hills, when I visit some of the groups working on various Canada Works

programs. Before the last election we had the EBAP program doing

excellent work of thinning and replanting, creating jobs that are

meaningful for those who are unemployed. They are small groups, but

this concept is something that we've got to build right into our

industry, so they are not something that comes on stream just before an

election. As it happened, just before the 1983 election the provincial

government poured a lot of money in, and made a lot of promises of

employment under EBAP. Right after the election they cut them out in

the name of restraint. The federal government has picked up some of

them under the Canada Works program, but they have kept a few people

working and they have done a lot of experimentation — developing

different systems of developing the fire roads, the thinning processes,

the identification of which is the best particular tree for each

particular area.

But they have been working in the dark. Each one of the methods that

they have developed has been proven in other countries that look at

their forest industries as renewable resources for years and years.

They're not inventing the wheel, but they're forced to, because this

government would rather spend billions of dollars on unnecessary

programs, getting this province into debt when they would not give the

leadership that should have been given.

I'll only lay the problem on the present Social Credit government

when they came into office in 1952. Even in 1952 we had started to look

at the forest economy in such a way: we're going to harvest so many

acres, we are going to replant so many acres, we are going to make

preparation down the line that when these acres have been replanted

they are properly thinned out and, if needed, fertilized — or whatever

other silvicultural method that is needed to guarantee the crop.

I look at my own riding. It's only lately that we have Pacific

Logging, who are now replanting hundreds and thousands of acres of land

that was harvested 30, 40 and 50 years ago. We're going to have to wait

another 40, 50 or 60 years to get a crop off of it. We have one

particular area in Port Renfrew — the San Juan valley — and, as does

everyone who has been involved in any way in agriculture, they know in

the valleys that where the good soil is is where crops grow the best.

Fifty years ago when the logging went through that area, they cut

all the best trees out of our valleys and moved on. If we had had a

policy such as was already in vogue in many countries of Europe, where

they do look at the continued rotation of timber — countries like

Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany, that are now competing in our

markets for wood products on which we have always had, as we often

thought, a kind of a complete monopoly.... We have abused that

monopoly. We have abused it by neglect.

It's far more important, if we are going to build an internal

economy, that we have to look in our own areas. I mentioned Port

Renfrew, where they cleaned out the San Juan valley, and they let it

grow up. Now we have two- and three foot alder and maple trees. Now

B.C. Forest Products have to go in and clean it out. If it had been

properly maintained they would be harvesting second-growth timber,

because that is where the trees would have grown the fastest. They

would have grown to their maximum, and we would have a community

harvesting the second crop.

But what happened? Because of this neglect, under thirty-odd years

of Social Credit and the Liberal coalition government before that, we

never had any long-range goals on providing a stable community. Now

B.C. Forests has moved their main operation out of Port Renfrew, and

all those who live and make their homes in that community — they moved

in and bought homes, knowing that they had a job and that there was

some stability — are left wondering if they're going to be a ghost town

like Ocean Falls, or if they're going to have to move farther on.

Because no one did what the Leader of the Opposition said.

We have to go into the communities. We have to consult with the

communities. We have to look at all the businesses — the large

businesses, the small businesses, private industry, public industry,

cooperatives. We have to go into these communities and consult, and we

have to build some stability of diversified jobs. We have to not only

harvest the timber — at the present time now on the coast they are

shipping it out in the raw — but we must utilize it as lumber.

We must build in this economy. We must build a type of full

employment that we are going to look at new products. We have to look

at new employment, and we have to integrate them into the community

that is already set up.

You look at the history of this province. You go up and down this

coast, and you look at the many abandoned logging camps, canneries and

plants. We have not looked at building a stable community, and I think

this is- something that.... If nothing else in the Leader of the

Opposition's alternative throne speech.... We must go out into the

community; we must look at it in a positive way; we must strengthen the

roots; we must give security; we must give hope that people can go in

and buy a home or build a home. They give the best part of their

working life harvesting the resources.

[ Page

5261 ]

We can't afford to continue to say: "Too bad, we've cut all the

trees down. We're going to move on." We can't afford that. We can't

afford it for our youth and we can't afford it for our economy, because

if we continue to do what has taken place in the past, if we continue

to refuse to listen to the suggestions of this opposition.... The debt

that this opposition, when we become government, are going to assume

and the horrible consequences that we're going to have to correct will

be the same as Mr. Mulroney is trying to sort out on the federal scene

— the mess that the Liberals had left behind them.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have to take a new look. We have to do

what the opposition has been suggesting: we have to look into the

community for a lot of the answers, We cannot, in spite of what the

cabinet, with all their wisdom.... They think that they can centralize

everything in Victoria, that they have all the answers. They don't.

They don't have all the answers, because when you look at their job

creation.... I know that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Brummet) says that we're against all the megaprojects. He says that

we're negative, we're whining. You look at these megaprojects. It's

been brought out by other speakers before me, Mr. Speaker, that there's

a fair investment in northeast coal. But for every $1 million that's

gone in there, it's created one job.

It's interesting that when you compare that one job for $1 million

with figures that have been released by the U.S. labour department....

In the figures that they have released, they said that if you're

spending $1 million on military spending to build up part of our arms

race.... For every million dollars that you spend there, you create 28

jobs. I really don't think they used the ALRT as a basis, but they said

that for every million dollars spent on public transit, it created 32

jobs. They said that for every million dollars that was cut back in

taxes.... When you cut back taxes a million dollars and the public have

that million dollars to spend on personal consumption.... For every

million dollars that you freed out of the tax, you created 57 jobs. But

the best one is the one that is really taking the beating in this

province. The best investment of $1 million to create the most jobs is

in education. For every million dollars given in education, it creates,

with the spinoff effect, 71 jobs.

[3:30]

I think if we're going to do any long-range predictions of where

British Columbia is going to go, we have to look at a lot of facts. We

just can't react and jump into this because it looks good in a

political pamphlet. I don't deny that the domed stadium in Vancouver

looks good on a political pamphlet. I don't deny that all the millions

of dollars we were spending on advertising before the '83 election —

building B.C.; they were blowing up rocks; all about northeast coal;

all the money.... It was quite spectacular.

HON. A. FRASER: Are you against the stadium?

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not against me having a yacht, but when a

yacht is going to break my family, when a yacht is going to take food

off my kids' table, when a yacht is going to make me unable to afford

to pay my mortgage, yes, I'm against the yacht. I say there are a lot

of these programs that we are not against, Mr. Speaker, through you to

my interjector, the Minister of Transportation and Highways. There are

a lot of items that we all think are great, but we have to get the

priorities on the record. The most important priorities of this

province are that we look toward to full employment, giving every child

the maximum education and preserving our health care services. Within

the framework of this budget, within the framework of the massive

amount of wealth we have, I say we in the NDP can do it. I know that

the Social Credit have failed to do it.

MR. MICHAEL: It is with pleasure and pride that I rise to

express my support for the throne speech. That message from our Premier

demonstrates to all British Columbians their government's firm

confidence in the future and faith in the power of all the people's

personabilities. In any endeavours, the government is committed to

providing forward-looking and creative leadership. Such leadership and

such confidence in the future is not based on vain hope; it rests upon

a clear understanding of the challenges that we face as a productive

province and upon a clear appreciation of the human and natural

resources with which we have been blessed. An understanding and

appreciation of our challenges, our resources and our potential enables

our government to formulate, present and bring into full being

practical and specific measures which will create jobs, stimulate

investment and improve the quality of life for all British Columbians.

All our creativity, skill and attention to new innovation must come

into being in the days ahead. We have spoken of a global recession that

has shaken our economy with rapid changes. Yet as that recession is

fading — as it is now — neither the world economy nor our own will

return to the way it was even as our productivity and prosperity

reaches even greater heights. The world economy has quickened its pace

and has developed both new opportunities and new challenges needed to

be hurdled.

Our own British Columbia economy has diversified, entering into new

industries and rebuilding existing ones. British Columbia faces many

global economic changes, some of which could possibly be destabilizing.

Simply put, unless we respond to them with increased vigour and

foresight in constantly improving our productivity and efficiency, they

might well slow our growth.

One such trend is the rapid, unrelenting, increasing value of the

American dollar. The dollar's rise is not so much indicative of the

strength of the American economy but of the unevenness of economic

growth throughout the world, especially in the newly developing

countries that have suffered far more than we in the global recession.

These countries, many of whom we can compete with in the

international marketplace for natural resources, expanded rapidly in

the 1970s and in doing so incurred large debts, often as large as their

annual gross domestic product. When the recession came, they found

themselves dangerously over-extended. To cover even the interest on

their loans, they appealed to international agencies such as the World

Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In the cases where the World

Bank and the IMF agreed to help, they often imposed harsh conditions,

such as the significant devaluation of the country's currency and the

increase of export sales of resources at reduced prices with the sole

purpose of gathering hard currency necessary for debt repayment to

western banks.

[ Page 5262 ]

The effect of such currency devaluations and overproduction upon our

own British Columbian industries can be most readily seen in the

example of the copper industry.

Whereas in the last two years the

Canadian dollar has been devalued by 8 percent, from $1.23 to $1.34 to

buy an American dollar, the Chilean peso has been devalued by 100

percent, going from 74 pesos to 146 pesos to the U.S. dollar. That

fact, coupled with the Chilean increase in copper production, has led

to a 40 percent drop in copper prices, which has quite obviously placed

great strain on our own copper industry as well as our provincial

economy. In gold, a similar situation exists with South Africa

increasing its production, despite a 20 percent fall in prices, to

cover the costs of its own domestic economic problems.

British Columbia's pulp industry provides a related though less

drastic example. Our own pulp manufacturers, who supply approximately

60 percent of Canada's total pulp production, compete with Swedish

manufacturers in the North American and northern European markets. For

a variety of reasons, wood-pulp prices began to drop rapidly in late

1982, bottoming out after a 25 percent decrease. The Swedish pulp

manufacturers have gained in competitiveness through a 20 percent

devaluation of the krona during a period when, as I said, the Canadian

dollar was devalued by only 8 percent. When our competitors lower the

value of their currency, it makes their goods cheaper relative to the

goods of nations such as our own, whose money value remains stable. We

must not forget that the Canadian dollar is actually growing in value

compared to almost all other currencies; it is only the American dollar

that is increasing compared to our own. So while it is true that our

resources and manufactured goods are becoming more competitive in the

United States, B.C. exports are becoming more expensive in all other

countries with a weaker currency than our own.

Although some might argue for a devaluation of our currency dollar

to match that of our competitors, they forget that Canada and B.C. are

believers in fair trade — trade conducted without exploitive and

ultimately self-defeating manipulations. As Canada has asked the United

States not to put quotas on our forest products, which are benefiting

from a currency devaluation not of our making, we cannot in good

conscience seek as well advantages made through politics rather than

through the marketplace and our own initiative. The fairer course is

also the most successful in the long run, when we are confident in our

talents and creativity, making the most of our resources.

Confidence in our own ability to create continued future economic

development through hard work and professional means stands out clearly

in the throne speech. We must increase our productivity and lower the

cost of extracting, developing and processing our forest and mineral

resources; if we do not, they will simply be wasted, both to us today

and to future generations. We must remain competitive in the world

marketplace if we are to retain our impressive share of the global

market and resources. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are not standing

still. B.C. business is constructing new facilities and modernizing old

plants to ensure that we retain our competitiveness and keep British

Columbians working. This is due in part to the climate of opportunity

and investment fostered by our Social Credit government.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) can tell the House of the incredible

modernization process underway in our forest industry. In 1984 total capital

and repair expenditures were $1.25 billion, an increase of 34 percent over 1983

expenditures. The commitment to keeping B.C. sawmills among the world's

most efficient and productive for many years to come has been impressive. Major

capital expenditures have been made or committed for mill construction, upgrading

or expansion in 1984, which total $589 million. That's almost $600 million

spent on economic renewal in the past year in the forest industry alone. This

was not government money. It did not come from the taxpayers' pockets. This

was money invested by the private sector in an effort to keep B.C.'s forest

industry in the forefront of the latest technological advances and remain as

productive as any other country in the international market.

At the Federated Co-operatives plywood plant at Canoe in my home

constituency, the installation of a $1.7 million high-speed lathe will

be complete in August. The Crown Forest Industries sawmill in Lumby was

virtually destroyed by fire last June. When it reopens in early April,

it will boast state-of-the-art equipment that will ensure a higher

recovery of lumber. Even more impressive, the new mill will employ 100

people, about as many as the previous one; all of the people who lost

their jobs because of the fire will be rehired. Tackama Forest Products

spent $12 million on a new plywood plant in Fort Nelson. L&K Lumber

Ltd. in Langdale invested $15 million in their sawmill expansion. West

Fraser Timber Co. in Williams Lake modernized their sawmill at a cost

of $9 million. Almost three dozen mills have implemented, or are

undergoing, major modernization or expansion programs, proving that

B.C.'s lumbermen have the confidence to compete in world markets

against any and all international competition.

[3:45]

Let me give you another encouraging example of how our private

sector is moving to meet the challenge of changing international

markets. Westar Timber operation offers a good example of how industry

can adapt to the competitive new reality. Productivity is on the rise

at all of Westar Timber Ltd. sawmills; coupled with an aggressive

selling effort overseas, the payoff is strongly growing lumber sales.

The company's offshore lumber sales have climbed from nothing in 1981

to 160 million cubic feet last year, 30 percent of their annual

production. In January and February of 1985, the company exceeded its

entire 1984 sales of $16 million board feet of lumber to Japan. An

important factor in the growth of shipments was in cutting lumber to

sizes and standards specifically required by the Japanese. Our

government is proud of the initiative displayed by these B.C.

entrepreneurs, and to ensure that our valuable forest resource is

available for development by future operations of free enterprisers we

are increasing our commitment to reforestation and silviculture. In

1982-3 some 87 million trees were planted, and in 1983-84 some 106.3

million. The Ministry of Forests is committed to expanding the number

of trees planted on Crown land in future years and anticipates that we

will reach the 160 million per year level by 1988-89.

I would like to applaud the decision of the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to appoint government

representatives to assist the initiative by Vancouver Island mayors,

led by North Cowichan mayor Graham Bruce, in their efforts to

complement the government's forest renewal program. I share his

enthusiasm for this constructive program.

I'm looking forward to a coming initiative of the provincial

government working together with business and labour to ensure that

B.C. remains competitive and prosperous. A

[ Page 5263 ]

commissioner of critical industries will be

appointed to facilitate the dialogue and cooperation necessary to

retain and expand jobs in our basic industries. The independent

commissioner will offer his good offices, when invited, to negotiate on

important matters involving taxation, energy and transportation costs

and labour. The commissioner will be another link in the partnership

for economic renewal.

A province with little confidence in itself or in the future would

not attract the investment of its own residents and others. Therefore I

am pleased to point to the strong investment in our province made by

the mining industry and particularly the coal industry. Total

investment in mining in 1983 was $1.6 billion. In 1984 some $912

million worth of coal was produced. The 19 million tonnes produced in

1984 was a jump of 91 percent in one single year, mostly due, of

course, to the start of shipments from northeast coal's Bullmoose and

Quintette mines. Recent sales of $30 million worth of coking coal from

mines in the southeast coal project are opening up another new market

for B.C. coal in Japan. The development of new international markets —

and it seems like new sales are being made every day — is largely due

to the aggressive marketing policies of our government.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new

Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) on

his appointment to this vital economic development position and wish

him much success in his efforts at creating new markets for British

Columbia products.

If B.C.'s natural resources and manufactured products are to reach

their foreign destinations, it is essential that a modern

transportation network be in place. The investment in infrastructure

signals a confidence in the future and our confidence that we can

compete in the world marketplace, and pays dividends in both immediate

construction jobs and long-term employment. One of the most ambitious

transportation construction programs is the $600 million project to

double-track the CPR line from Calgary to Vancouver. The line passes

through Shuswap-Revelstoke, and I've had the opportunity to witness

first-hand the job creation and economic development that this project

is bringing about. The Mt. Macdonald tunnel — the longest in North

America — is the centrepiece of the project, which removes the

bottleneck which has impeded the increase of shipments through B.C.'s

ports. Along with the CN expansion program and the northeast coal

infrastructure, the CPR double-tracking conveys the pattern of growth

and development that is part of economic renewal.

Mr. Speaker, there are other examples of economic renewal active

throughout the province. Our growing high technological industry is

creating new products and making new scientific and commercial

discoveries every day. One example worth particular note is that of the

Moli Energy Ltd. The company grew out of the accidental discovery of an

innovative battery process using lithium and molybdenum. The inventor

has received support from both private investors and the provincial and

federal governments. In 1980 the provincial government, through the

Science Council of British Columbia, provided nearly $500,000 so that

Moli Energy could carry out the applied scientific research necessary

to make the process commercially successful. To ensure that the moly

battery discovered and developed here in B.C. would also be

manufactured here, thus benefiting all British Columbians, the B.C.

Development Corporation, under the direction of the Ministry of

Universities, Science and Communications, pledged $5 million to assist

Moli in its start-up production and marketing costs. The federal

government, as well, has assisted under the industrial and regional

development program. Construction has already begun on Moli Energy's

manufacturing plant in the new industrial park in Maple Ridge. The

plant will ultimately employ 230 people, and bring a $5 million payroll

to the area. In addition, under Moli's agreement with BCDC, a

molybdenum distillate processing plant will be built in the Kamloops

area, and will create another 20 jobs. Moli hopes to capture a

significant dollar share of the multi-billion dollar battery market.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that economic renewal is underway in

British Columbia today. We can see this renewal in that more British

Columbians were employed in 1984 than in 1983 and in that between

November 1983 and November 1984 B.C. created jobs faster than any other

province, with an average increase of 3.7 percent — compared to the

national average of 2.4 percent.

A positive partnership between a confident business community and a

confident provincial government will contribute even more to renewal.

The throne speech reaffirms that our government is confident in its

policies and programs and in the intelligence, creativity and

determination of all British Columbians. That confidence is born of a

realistic appraisal of B.C.'s natural and human resources, and the

conditions in the increasingly complex and competitive world economy.

The throne speech and recent trends and examples illustrate that B.C.

has faced openly the challenges of the marketplace, and responded with

a spirit of determination, with a respect for innovation and fairness

and — I do not hesitate to say it — with a quiet courage.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate on

the throne speech. It's a document that sends us mixed signals. It's a

document that talks about a sense of optimism at the same time that it

talks about the necessity for restraint. It's a document that talks

about partnership at the same time that we have a government that has

alienated nearly every individual and organized group in this province.

It talks about a sense of optimism and about a time of economic

renewal. Now that would be great. I would love to feel that I could

have a sense of optimism about B.C.'s future. There's no one who would

like better to be optimistic about what's going to happen to our young

people, our working people and our small business people in this

province. There is no one who would rather see a reconstruction of our

very beleaguered economy. I would like to believe what the Premier,

through the throne speech, is saying.

But I have no reason to believe that that is correct, that those statements....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Just a minute, Madame Member.

Our House leaders make it impossible for the Speaker to hear your

speech. Possibly they would.... You may proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's half of the Assembly now gone, Mr. Speaker. And I'm not going to count the numbers.

As I was saying, and I will repeat for your benefit, I would like to

believe that this was going to happen. But I don't find anything to

encourage me to believe that. It would be nice to believe that this

government really had some positive programs in mind that were going to

enable us to have a sense of optimism and to have economic renewal. I

don't know on what basis they say that's going to happen. I

[ Page 5264 ]

can't understand on what basis, when all the

economists that I hear and all the reports that I read indicate that's

not going to happen. That's discouraging.

In its recent report the Conference Board of Canada concluded that

B.C. had the worst performance of any province in Canada during the

whole recession, and that recovery in B.C. is weaker than in the rest

of Canada. It goes on to say that the reason for that is the B.C.

government's policies. The data that the Conference Board has put

together show that Canadian unemployment has declined by 0.6 percent,

from 11.9 to 11.3, between 1983 and 1984. At the same time, the

unemployment rate in B.C. actually increased from 13.8 to 14.8, a full

percentage point, despite a dramatic improvement in our basic export

markets.

So economists are telling us that what the throne speech tells us is

not so. Bankruptcies tell us that what the throne speech tells us is

not so. Capital investment tells us that what the throne speech tells

us is not so. And certainly unemployment statistics tell us the same

thing.

The number of people in receipt of unemployment insurance and the

number of people in receipt of social assistance is, for all practical

purposes, half a million out of a population of two and a half million.

That's disgraceful. That's a direct result of the policies this

government has pursued for the last few years. In economic terms that

means that for every one of those people who is unemployed in this

province we have lost the potential of $4,000 per year in output, in

productivity. In social terms that represents irreparable damage.

During the past few years this government and this Premier have

deliberately imposed a cruel and unnecessary regime on British

Columbia. Wages represent 80 percent of our economy in B.C. When we

reduce the payroll by the amount that we have, by the amount of

unemployment that we have in this province, we begin to destroy the

economy. Restraint does not stimulate the economy. Restraint in itself

restrains the economy. The loss of $4,000 potential productivity from

each of the unemployed is just one example of that.

[4:00]

You see, Mr. Speaker, the government's approach is based on the

premise that deficits cause recession. But since restraint causes

recession, it also causes deficits. We have ample proof of that. When

this government took over, there was no operating debt. They may argue

with that. They'll try to tell us there was $271 million operating debt

— the fancy footwork, the transfer of the rubber cheque to ICBC.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: Borrowed it back the next day.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right. But even if you accept that $271

million of operating debt, what is it today? Four billion dollars.

That's the result of restraint. Restraint creates deficits. If you look

at the total debt over the last ten years, the total debt of this

province has grown from $4.7 billion to $17 billion. That's a fourfold

increase.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the total debt. I've talked about the operating

debt, Mr. Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), if you'd

been listening. The total debt has grown fourfold. But your operating debt is

$4 billion, as compared to nil when you started. So restraint causes deficits.

You see, the government's premises are wrong. Their whole direction

has been wrong. It has been a sorry price that the people of British

Columbia have paid for that cruel and harsh regime that they have

insisted on placing upon the backs of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, every economist will tell you that the public sector

should help promote recovery through a broad range of initiatives

instead of by pursuing the policies that this government has pursued.

Governments should stimulate demand during recessions. In that way they

compensate for the downturns in private investment. If they don't take

that action through public spending and the maintenance of a safety net

for working people — the citizens of British Columbia — what they do is

lock the economy into an indefinite recession.

Economic theory also shows that those kinds of programs in an

economy such as British Columbia's, which is an open economy, are

particularly foolish. Anything that we do in cuts in spending in a

jurisdiction as small as British Columbia has no effect at all on

interest rates. Therefore any capital that we free up for this simply

leaves the country, instead of staying here to stimulate our own

economy.

Economists also tell us that to rely on the market is just as

hazardous. We in British Columbia are dominated by a limited number of

very large multinational corporations, most of which are externally

controlled. Noranda is the one outstanding example, and you will

remember how it got to be this way: the Premier — who said that B.C.

was not for sale — agreed to sell MacMillan Bloedel to Noranda. And

what do they control now as a result of that?

MR. MACDONALD: Thirty percent of the forests.

MRS. WALLACE: And 50 percent of the mining. By virtue of

those powers, their whole investment policy has no concern for British

Columbia's economy. Their decisions are made in boardrooms outside of

this province; their investments are based on entirely different

concerns than whether or not the B.C. economy prospers.

There's another theory that economists advance: they tell us that

the idea that spending on economic infrastructure is not superior to

social spending.... That concept is incorrect; that's the concept that

this government has been pushing over the years. But those economic

studies tell us that the social infrastructure, particularly education,

is extremely important. Those studies show us that spending on social

programs, particularly education, is extremely important. Why is that

so? If we are going to ensure that we have a population that is able to

deal with the demands of this highly technical society, then we must

have an educated population.

With this government we have seen a real onslaught on young people

in this province. We've seen university and college fees go up; we've

seen the public school system eroded, we've seen a restriction in

entrance to universities, and we've seen a reduction in programs.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do you want us to borrow some more?

MRS. WALLACE: You're borrowing for the wrong things, Mr. Minister. You're not listening to what I'm saying.

[ Page 5265 ]

If you would listen to what I'm saying and to what economists are

saying, you would realize that you're moving in entirely the wrong

direction.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm surprised that the Minister of Agriculture

and Food seems so upset this afternoon. He's usually a very quiet

little member who sits there, and the only time he has anything to say

is if he has some concern about the rules of the House. I would suggest

to him, Mr. Speaker, that if he just sat quietly and listened to

what.... He had his turn in this debate, and if he just sat quietly and

listened to what I had to say.... He's a nice, bright chap and he might

be able to absorb some of the arguments that I'm making. But if he

keeps interrupting me, and I have to repeat my train of thought, it is

going to be not only difficult for me but even more difficult for him

because he will never understand what I am saying.

One of the arguments that has been put forward by economists

certainly refutes the concept that the large megaprojects are the route

to go. Also, the centralized control of decision-making is the wrong

way to go. Consultation and cooperation are essential if we're going to

maintain investor confidence.

You know, the throne speech has mixed messages. It talks about the

continuation of restraint, and yet it talks about some expanded

programs. Well, we won't really know what those are until tomorrow when

we hear the budget. But I suspect that what we're going to see is some

kind of a strategy which will combine continued cuts in the public

sector with subsidies to the private sector. That will be the net

result.

What happens when we give subsidies to the private sector? Certainly

if you give them to concerns like Noranda and other major concerns —

and even the smaller concerns, but particularly the larger concerns —

they have no effect on the economy whatsoever. To have an effect, those

subsidies would have to provide a stimulus to the B.C. economy. But

what usually happens is that the subsidy is given to a company to

undertake some operation which they would have undertaken anyway,

whether or not the subsidy had been given. The firms that are attracted

by those subsidies are usually very slow-growth firms. In its 1982

budget the government did its own analysis, and that analysis indicated

that that strategy of subsidies would simply reduce economic activity.

The figures that they gave were that for every $100 million cut in

government spending there would be a loss of 3,300 jobs. So even if the

whole $100 million was used to finance tax cuts, there would still be a

net loss of over 800 jobs.

You see, the problem with tax cuts is that they're not necessarily

expended in this economy. One of the reasons is the lack of confidence

in the economy. Financial papers and financial institutions are

advising investors to bypass B.C., that it is not a good investment

area. The people of British Columbia are so insecure in their future

that we have record savings. I think there are $23.5 billion in the

banks and saving institutions of British Columbia. The people are

afraid to spend because they're afraid of their economic future.

That lack of security, which has been a direct result of this government's

policies, is simply aiding and abetting this recession and is the reason that

the Conference Board has come up with a report which indicates that the government's

policies are the reason that the economy is not recovering in British Columbia

as it is in the rest of Canada. It can't be blamed on external forces, Mr.

Speaker. In 1983 B.C. exports increased dramatically. B.C.'s basic industry,

the forest industry, attained a record output last year. No one will deny that.

So we can't blame it on external forces. It comes right back home to roost

on the shoulders of this government. It's their direction. Their premise

has been entirely wrong, and it has taken the people of British Columbia down

a long and sorrowful path with untold human suffering, social disruption and

family disruption. There is a better way.

[4:15]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: It will be nice when he gets out of the House.

I'm used to this, though. I'm not used to the Minister of Agriculture

and Food, but I'm used to that minister. He always interrupts me.

Yes, there is a better way. You see, if we as a government and as

people work together in consultation, we can come up with a better way.

I know the speakers on the other side of the House will say that that's

what the throne speech says — that we're going to have consultation —

but I'll believe that when I see it. I think it's going to be a great

PR job. I don't trust that government, and I don't trust that Premier.

He's often been known to break his word. That government has often been

known to break....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm afraid I'll have to ask the member to

withdraw that reference to another hon. member. A simple withdrawal,

please, with respect to the statement made about another member of this

House.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I don't trust the government, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you please withdraw the statement with reference to a member of this House.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't trust the Premier's policies. I will withdraw the reflection to the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't trust the Premier's policies. It has

been proven on many occasions that he says one thing and does the

other. That government says one thing and does the other. I don't trust

them, and I don't think the people of B.C. trust them, Mr. Speaker.

What should be happening is a spirit of cooperation between

government and local regions. We should think about setting up regional

councils, which would be responsible to the people in those regions, to

study and identify the needs and the functions in the regions and to

work with government to ensure that the things that were needed in

those regions were available to them.

We should consider including employees to investigate ways that

workers could be involved in the whole process of management and

decision-making. After all, it is their lives which are affected far

more than any one else's. It is their lives that are on the line here

in this recession.

[ Page 5266 ]

We should set up an investment fund. The people over there will

scream: "Oh, you're going to spend more money." I think it far better

to set up an investment fund to be spent on the advice of and with the

knowledge and information that would be available from people in local

regions than to simply squander it on some major project that the

government happens to think is of immediate concern.

You see, I don't believe that all the wisdom in B.C. sits in those

21 chairs over there. I don't believe that. I see the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) agrees with me. I think

that government would be well advised to take the people of British

Columbia into its confidence, to try to heal the wounds that they have

created with the various local bodies and various groups and give them

the opportunity to have real and meaningful input into how we get out

of this mess that the government has gotten us into.

The government is obviously bankrupt of ideas. They are so committed

to this direction of restraint and to the idea that the way to

stimulate the economy, if you do stimulate it at all, is to give

subsidies or concessions to major industries. It has been shown so many

times that you never really get that back into the B.C. economy because

of the very nature of our economy. The information that I have provided

the House relative to the various economists that have made these

studies has indicated that that is not the way to stimulate an economy.

You put the money in at the bottom in the form of tax credits or jobs,

into the pockets of low-income people. They're the people who will

reinvest it. That's how you spark a consumer-led recovery.

I see that my green light is on. I'm just started. That's unfortunate, because I have a great many things I wanted to discuss.

In closing I will just talk very briefly about the youth program.

This is the year of the youth, and we just received the first message

from the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), a little note that

said: "I'm sending you something from the federal minister." The

federal minister says that this year they're going to give $19.4

million to a youth employment program in B.C. Do you know what they

gave last year, Mr. Speaker? They gave $19.7 million. So big deal; less

this year than before. We don't know what the provincial government is

going to give, but last year they only contributed $9.1 million. I'm

not holding my breath to see them come down with any more. That program

last year created 24,000 jobs. That's not to be sneezed at, but it

certainly isn't enough in today's situation when you have 25 and 30

percent of our youth unemployed. It's shameful. I would hope that when

that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) delivers his budget tomorrow

he matches dollar for dollar what the feds are putting out this year.

Perhaps I should read into the record the editorial on the throne

speech from one of my local papers. It says: "Try as he might, artful

though he be, the recipient of the news proffered from the Speech from

the Throne is unlikely to glean more than a glimmer of gold from that

miserly missive." The

article goes on to say that this government is

bankrupt of ideas, and I agree.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might I have the leave of the hon. members to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge in

our galleries today a person who is no stranger to this House: the

former member for Saanich and the Islands, John Tisdalle.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to tell you

that I'm regretfully going to support the positive alternative throne

speech of the Leader of the Opposition, as against that paper-thin one

that came down from the government side, as thin as the piece of ham

you used to get in the restaurants in the Depression days; if you

didn't eat it quickly and somebody opened the door it would blow away.

I want to pay respects before I say anything more, but I won't pay

the traditional respects; they have been paid. I pay respect, though,

to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who

brings a sense of humus into this House. I pay respect to the

government back bench — not to the 21 ministers and their handypersons.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when we used to turn to the

trained seals on the government back bench and say: "Whoa, you've got

to change your vote." Now we have only one to appeal to — one

back-bencher unfee'd, especially by the government, and he wrestles

with his conscience every few days but always loses. I wish the leader

of the United Party was in the House today, with his feet firmly

planted in mid-air, because I always enjoy his speeches. He says — and

I took down his words — that he was in search of a strategy for

economic recovery. I think what we've got is a search party, really:

searching for a policy, searching for members, searching for a leader.

He betrayed the people of his own city; they ordered turkey and they

got ham.

I see opposite me the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom), and I commiserate with him on the loss of his right-hand

man when he was in the city of London and his right-hand man was fired

by somebody in the Premier's office — of course the Premier knew

nothing about it. I'm referring to Maury Gwynne, who years ago used to

live on E. 43rd Street in Vancouver East, and voted for me — although

he didn't make a habit of it, I'm afraid. He made a harmless little

joke, and for that it was: "Off with his head!" I say that with some

feeling, because I think there's a mean spirit operating there that

doesn't have any place in this province of British Columbia.

I don't see the Premier in his place. He said that those who favour

the abolition of the Senate — and he included Mr. Mulroney in this —

were teenagers. I want to assure you that I'm one of the teenagers who

fully agree with the total abolition of that bastion of privilege and

patronage,

But it's a little bit more difficult to pay tribute to the state of

legislative democracy in this chamber in the province of British

Columbia these days. We get plain bills coming forward, where the

expressed by anyone about the meaning of those bills or what's going to

happen to them; they're legislation of the highest lawmaking authority

in the province of British Columbia.

. Yet, Mr. Speaker, at about 4:15 in the afternoon of February 15,

1985, the Premier of the province of British Columbia came into this

chamber and cast a false vote, having already decided. The office was

set up to do it: to refer what he had voted on — and was supposed to be

believing in, and didn't believe in; it was a duplicitous vote — to

another office for canvassing.

[4:30]

[ Page 5267 ]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is a little bit upset.

I'm going to be a little bit serious for a moment, Mr. Speaker. I

have to watch that clock, although I haven't got that much to say. I

pick up here, sort of the state of the economy of the province of

British Columbia, and I can't understand how appalling it is, if these

figures are true. I pick up the unemployment insurance claimants in the

province of British Columbia, in February 1985. I'm not talking about

people on social assistance, and other people who are in dire straits

who are not able to claim either one — social assistance or

unemployment insurance. The unemployment insurance claimants totalled

239,740 people. That's an incredible figure. You add social assistance

recipients to that — they're not getting both — and we have a crisis of

staggering proportions in this so-called free enterprise economy of

ours. I don't even believe the figures that I see, where unemployment

is supposed to be 16 percent and.... This is almost by itself. Ten

percent of the workforce, or more. It gives the six regions of the

province, and breaks it down. No economy can possibly stand that kind

of extensive unemployment.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We see the wearing away of the productive secondary industrial base

of this province. I intend to give some examples. The secondary

industrial wealth-producing base of this province, which is primary to

service industries and businesses and social services, is being eroded.

As one example, Mr. Speaker, I refer to a small industry in Vancouver

East, on Wall Street — I mentioned it a little bit the other day —

Westroc Industries. It's a child of a multinational — there's nothing

wrong as such with that — British Plaster Board, which also had a plant

in Calgary for the production of wallboard and gypsum products. On June

7 of this year 57 men and women in the bargaining unit will lose their

jobs — and if you include the sales force and everything else, it comes

to about 84 — and the building on Wall Street will become a warehouse.

What happened was that while this government was asleep at the

switch, in terms of the kind of productive sector I'm talking about,

the parent company decided to modernize the plant in Calgary and not

the one in British Columbia. The result is that they are now producing

the wallboard in four-foot-wide strips at 135 feet per minute, while

the old machinery on Wall Street was 75 feet. Where was the Minister of

Industry when that happened? About six months ago a disastrous neglect

took place by this government, and now we have 84 more people out of

work, to add to that list of UIC claimants.

It was not a question of wages, because the United Cement, Lime and

Gypsum Workers are certified and have contracts at both plants, with

We can't afford to live in a province that doesn't make its own

wallboard, when we're a forest province. That's the kind of thing that

is happening in our economy.

I take another example: the question of bread. Would you believe

that the province of British Columbia is increasingly not baking its

own bread? You can see, in part, what is taking place if you look at

the contracts even of the Vancouver Parks Board, where they order their

buns from Seattle. You go into McDonald's Hamburgers, which buys a lot

of buns, and you find they're imported from across the line; they're

trucked in in giant trucks. If you go into your Safeway and see the

slogan, "Safeway's Got It," and what they've got increasingly is

American bread. Some of it, unbelievably, is trucked in from as far as

New York — because the heavy bread lasts quite a long time — and some

of it is frozen; some is from California, and quite a lot of it is from

the state of Washington to our south.

Now here we do have a problem in terms of our costs, our efficiency

and our quality, because the wage levels in British Columbia are about

20 percent higher and the cost of flour is about 40 percent higher

because we have our marketing boards and our Wheat Board — and there

are other factors involved in that. Then you have the flour companies,

and heaven knows what their profits are.

But we get to the point where a staple of life such as bread is not

being fully produced in this province. It should be a first priority of

government to look at these productive industries which, in addition to

the great natural resource industries of this province, are essential

to our economic health and absolutely essential if we are going to have

anything approaching full employment in this province of British

Columbia. We have to diversify, expand or die insofar as that vital

secondary-industry, value-added portion of the province of British

Columbia is concerned.

I'll take another example. The Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is not in his place.... I don't

want to say anything about him in a personal way. That would offend the

Chair, I'm sure. Anyway, what he lacks in common sense he makes up for

in brilliance.

Two years ago that minister announced 700 jobs in Sidney assembling

microchips. It was to be done by Dynatek Corp. Dynatek is owned by....

The promoters come from Asian Reliability of the Philippines. Of

course, they wanted public subsidies out of the public treasuries of

the province of British Columbia and, I suppose, also of Canada. But

the promoters of that company are now.... Two years later, when there

is no $49 million plant anywhere in sight, the promoters of that

company are now found to be in trouble with the government of the

Philippines for diverting government funds that they had received for

some project outside of the borders of their own country for their own

use.... Really, Mr. Speaker, are we getting to the point where we're

going to have to rely upon high-flying international wheeler-dealers

for our secondary base in this province of British Columbia?

The people of British Columbia, according to one figure, have $36

billion in savings. I'm a little suspicious about all figures. They say

that is term deposits and interest-bearing savings accounts. Some of

that money, no doubt, is usefully employed in terms of mortgages and

other things. But the necessity of diverting enough investment capital

into the productive side to make this economy hum in a secondary way,

in a manufacturing way, will never be more imperative than it is today

when you look at the UIC figures that I referred to earlier.

Another example I take, Mr. Speaker, is Sooke Forest Products, which

is not very far away; it has its sister company, Lamford Cedar, in New

Westminster. Here you have, through Hershell Smith and his son Glenn

Smith, a very progressive management. For example, because they handled

cedar they were determined not to butcher and waste a great portion of

that wood, which takes 500 years to grow. You know, we're going to see

the end of those great cedars

[ Page 5268 ]

that were such an ornament in the province of British Columbia. They're going.

You look at the growth rings on cedar, and in about three-quarters

of an inch, you get just two or three rings,

whereas if you look at

hemlock or pine or something of that kind, you might get 20 years in

three-quarters of an inch. So it takes 500 years, and they wanted to

have the best saws to recover the most in terms of that precious wood

which is fast disappearing from the forests of the province of British

Columbia.

So they modernized their mill. Lamford Cedar is now equipped as one

of the best mills anywhere in the world, and it's bankrupt. I find out

that there is a $30 million loan outstanding from Canadian commercial

banks for the modernization program, and for some reason — I don't know

why it's this high — the interest rate is 19 percent. You know, a

strong company with good credit may get an industrial expansion loan

for prime rate or slightly above prime rate.

Even that is a killer, Mr. Speaker — even that 11 percent or 12

percent. The countries of Scandinavia would not be able to compete in

the world as they're doing today if their credit for industrial

expansion was from 12 percent to 19 percent. And so you say we should

go in and subsidize that industry? It's almost too late; we'd be

subsidizing the bank. It's very difficult to recover when you allow

that productive base to run down the way we have in the province of

British Columbia.

I'll give one more instance, and that's the B.C. Hydro story,

because if there was ever a story of mismanagement and a disaster of

staggering proportions, it is the story of B.C. Hydro in the last few

years. B.C. Hydro now has in debt, loans outstanding in American funds,

$3.9 billion, and of that $2.9 billion were run up in the last eight

years. Another loan made for B.C. Hydro, I'm proud to say, was made by

a Jewish Premier from an Arab state. Do you remember the trouble we

used to have about that? But it's repayable in Canadian funds.

In nine months, from April 1984 to December 1984, with the falling

Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar, B.C. Hydro had

additional finance charges amounting to $50 million a year, and I

haven't covered the whole period of the falling Canadian dollar.

So what we have is a tremendous financial haemorrhage in the

province. An additional $50 million in finance charges is more than the

Minister of Industry and Small Business used to spend orbiting the

globe. It's a lot of money. The only country he has never landed in is

Russia, which rather surprises me because he's the greatest Bullshevik

of them all. Now that you've changed your portfolio, will you go to

Moscow? You've been everywhere else, and now you're covering the world

twice-over.

The result for the Hydro customers has been tremendous bills for

natural gas and electricity. The number of employees in B.C. Hydro

drawing paycheques and doing good work — not on the list of the UIC

people; they were not a charge on the public — has gone down in the

last couple of years from 10,000 to about 7,400 today. Surely we have

come to the point in Canada where we can finance the electrical

projects we need. We've always been able to do that, but instead we run

to the money markets of New York. We have no planning; we rely on the

private enterprise system, and it has led us into this kind of disaster.

[4:45]

The Leader of the Opposition had this to say in his alternative

throne speech, and he was talking positively about the secondary

industrial base I'm talking about. He said there were two basic

features of a successful provincial reconstruction policy: a B.C.

development fund to apply resource revenues to economic development

projects, and the investment of provincial funds for economic

redevelopment on an economic rather than a partisan political basis.

In Sweden, where I spent ten days last year, they now have in

existence five regional funds. They call them wage earner funds. They

are controlled by public people appointed by the government for the

various regions. So that the Swedish industry will not lack that

necessary infusion of capital to modernize and give them a cutting

edge, they receive 0.2 percent from incomes and 20 percent from

corporate profits over a certain level. They also have this; they are

an investment by ordinary people in the country and in its industries.

It gives ordinary people a piece of the rock. We can't transplant any

such ideas wholesale to Canada, but we have to find ways to finance and

re-equip our industries so that they have a cutting edge.

There are two basic philosophies operating in the world at the

present time, and one of them is operating here in British Columbia.

You might call one of them Reaganism. We look south of our border, and

we see a country being segmented into three-thirds. In the top third

you've got very privileged people; in the middle third you have people

who are doing quite well and aspiring to do even better; at the bottom

you have a third of the people of that country who are reduced to

penury and political impotence by Reaganism.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt — and I'm reminded of this because the

member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), although he didn't credit

his name in what was one of the best maiden speeches in the Legislature

— said a long time ago: "I see one-third of a nation ill-fed,

ill-clothed and ill-housed." That's true today. Yet this province is

blindly following Reaganism in its economic approach, at a time when

Reaganism, Thatcherism and Bennettism are morally and socially bankrupt.

In contrast, you can look to some of the more progressive countries

of the world that have taken the social-democratic alternative,

particularly the countries of northern Europe, the Scandinavian

countries. There they pursue three goals, with far greater success than

has occurred anywhere else in the world. Their first goal is social

equality, based upon a fair sharing of both sacrifices and benefits.

Their second goal is low price rises, based upon government,

representing the public, and labour, representing working people, and

business, representing management, getting together in a consensus as

to what the country can afford, and how best to distribute what the

country earns fairly and equitably in the name of social equality.

Thirdly, they have achieved very close to full employment. They are

appalled when they think in terms of the kind of unemployment we

tolerate in Canada, and particularly in the province of British

Columbia. As I said, by a necessary infusion of productive capital

formation to modernize their industries, particularly the small labour

intensive industries, they give their export industries a cutting edge

in the markets of the world.

The Leader of the Opposition had this to say in his alternative

throne speech. He said that social justice and equality are not only

worthwhile in themselves but also good economics. The fact of the

matter is that you cannot have full employment and low inflation

without social equality. There must be spending power among all of the

citizens. None of

[ Page 5269 ]

them should be left behind to line up in food banks, as we are doing in this province. We are so far behind.

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatsoever about where this great

divide comes in the world between, on the one hand, Reaganism,

Thatcherism and Bennettism and, on the other, the social-democratic

approach toward full employment, social equality and low cost rises. I

have no doubt where every member in this House should be, because as I

said, when the Premier had not taken his seat, Reaganism, Thatcherism

and Bennettism are morally and socially bankrupt.

The Leader of the Opposition has presented practical alternatives.

He has presented alternatives that demand examination by everyone in

this province. They are the beginning of the road toward the kind of

economy of which we can be proud; the beginning of the road back from

things like the great Hydro debts that are everywhere about, from

things like these figures on unemployment insurance — 239,000 claimants

on unemployment insurance alone. There is no possibility, under this

kind of unplanned economy without public direction, of reversing that

trend and bringing to every person in the province of British Columbia

the abundance that scientific and technological change have made a

perfectly practicable matter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've had a good throne speech debate — one

of the more interesting debates that I have been able to witness, both

from my seat here in the chamber and, when tied up in my office, by

using the facilities of the Speaker and in the evening the text of Hansard .

The debate this year, for the most part, has a new element. It has

alternative proposals from the Leader of the Opposition and some new

directions from the independent member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

I'm not going to reject these proposals out of hand or criticize

them in the traditional political sense, as is usually the case. I will

be interested, through the course of this session, to listen to the

Leader of the Opposition and his party put a price tag on these

proposals — cost them for the people of British Columbia; deliver, in

fact, the type of budget that these proposals would entail in order to

do something for the economy or show where they would be more

beneficial than the programs this government is advocating during a

very difficult time.

But I do know this: it's easier today for the opposition to offer

proposals to deal with our economy, to deal with British Columbians,

when this government has done the most difficult part of the task in

containing the cost of programs — not the essential elements of the

programs for the most part, but the heavy demands for compensation

increases that were out of sight in 1982. Yet we were vilified and

called all sorts of names when we tried to protect those programs.

Whether for the education of our young or education within our

universities, or for government services, when we asked those who were

hired to deliver those programs to moderate their demands along what

other British Columbians were having to face in a very harsh

marketplace, we did not have the support of the opposition. We did not

have the reasonable alternatives they talk about today. On the one hand

we had their allegiance to unlimited compensation increases for special

interest groups, not decreased spending or efficiency so that our

budgets would reflect our ability to pay in an economy that, through no

fault of our own, through international economic circumstance, was

structurally changed. At the same time, they asked for increased

spending, and they targeted the difficult areas of trying to go through

a tough situation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Over those three years it was our responsibility, as the government,

to make the decisions to bring us to this point. Given that our budget,

our taxpayers' ability to pay in the future for essential programs, is

structurally within our limits, we can now talk about additions to the

programs that will expand our economic base, not embark on proposals

that would shovel money out, and make-work programs that, as persuasive

and pleasing as they seem at the time, and however much they appeal as

the instant answer that people want, leave behind greater problems,

greater debts, greater difficulties for government and the people who

will follow, and for those who would receive services in the future.

So I guess that today I would like to say yes, we can have

alternatives from the opposition now, but I wish they'd been there

helping with the solutions in '82, '83, '84 and '85, when a fast mouth

and a quick idea were not going to solve the problem. I wish that

during those tough years we'd had the type of reasonable cooperative

debate they talk about now. Their record during those three years is

not a proud one. The newspapers, the clippings, the Hansards

of this House recorded the criticisms, the lack of friendly and

positive cooperation that was needed so much in this province and this

country at that time. It's a record that those who today.... I accept

the offer of solutions now, when it's easy, but I will not forget that

they were not there with those solutions when it was tough. In fact,

the problems became greater for the government, as political activity

became more important than guiding our people through the difficult

time. While we didn't have economic and political leadership, we did

have partisan leadership from the opposition, who chose to divide this

province into sections and groups at a time when we needed our people

together more than ever; in adversity the partnership of people must go

beyond all those usual lines that divide us — partisan, economic and

geographic lines.

[5:00]

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that period is behind us. But I had

to remind this House today, in supporting this throne speech, that I

wish the feeling of cooperative partnership and working together, the

feeling of making a more harmonious House, the feeling of offering

alternative solutions, had been with us starting in '82 when the

international recession hit us, and the difficulties we faced grew

worse every year. Today I am feeling positive about this province and

about the debate I heard in the House.

I am not going to canvass all of the areas that were in the throne

debate. It speaks for itself. It speaks for itself in covering the

areas in which we will form a partnership with our municipalities, and

we will solidify and extend the partnership that we have with the

federal government. It will be, at least at the elected level, a

country working together in all its parts, trying to encourage ordinary

people, small business, large business, financiers and others to have

some confidence in programs that will give them confidence to invest in

their country, to invest in business, to employ our people, to take a

chance, to take a risk. This throne speech provides other opportunities

as well which will be spelled out later in legislation and in the

budget which the Finance minister will deliver tomorrow.

[ Page 5270 ]

A number of members have focused, both in this debate and in

question period in this House, on a couple of key areas which I would

like to deal with. In a way, I would like the opposition members of

this House to know that there are some areas in which we should not

seek to play politics, in which the future of our....

The first is Expo 86. I know members over there and many members of

the public, including the present mayor of Vancouver, opposed Expo when

it was first proposed. I'm pleased to say that one of the very earliest

converts to making Expo work is the present mayor of Vancouver. I'd

like to say that he did it before it was fashionable. Expo 86 can be a

great opportunity for success. It will need the cooperation of

everyone. But it can be a lesser success than it would be if there are

those who would see it fail. If there are groups in British Columbia

that want so desperately for Expo to fail, they can do it. They can at

least limit its success. They can talk about problems that don't exist;

they can see that problems arise. They can create and foster outside

the borders of this province an image about Expo which is not correct.

They can be less than enthusiastic about making it work. They can be

part of a team that, in ignoring it, helps limit its success. But if

they do any of those things they are not helping British Columbia.

They're not helping the people who will have jobs there. They won't

help British Columbia's image among the business people — the

international business people and investors and those with technology

who will be a part of the fair and visiting the fair, and people who

will be making investment decisions, major ones of an international

nature, that will employ our people in the future. They may limit their

ability to want to consider British Columbia, even though we will have

them captive during that fair in an attractive city in an attractive

setting. It may, unless we work together, limit the success we can get

from Expo.

I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that they now

support Expo, and they want to see it work. I accept that, and I would

recommend that to every British Columbian.

There is another area out of the throne speech and out of the debate

where I think we should work together. That is not in the area of

provincial programs, which we can argue and debate within this House.

You'll have a fair shot at criticizing those programs from the

opposition.