1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3561 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Parks –– 3561

Mr. Blencoe –– 3562

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3566

Ms. Sanford –– 3569

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of the

rest of the life of the Prime Minister. It is also a historic day in

the life of one of the members of this assembly: it is the first day of

the second half of the century for the first member for Vancouver South

(Mr. R. Fraser), whose fiftieth birthday it is. I would ask that all

members would make him welcome on his birthday.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce Gail

Zuccolini, a visitor to this assembly today who is seated in the

gallery. I would ask the members to welcome Gail.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. PARKS: Merci and bonjour.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon in concluding my remarks I stated

that I had discussed a number of specific items that had been

criticized by members of the opposition and in a sense put forth in

their amendment, which was supposedly their rationale for condemning

this government's budget.

This morning I would like to refer to the one main theme of the

opposition, as I understood it, with respect to their claims that the

role that the government should play in the fiscal sense should be

based upon what I believe should be called supply-side economics. Time

and again we have been criticized for putting forth capital projects

which have, as we all recognize, brought thousands upon thousands of

jobs to this economy at a time when we were in great need of them. Yet

the opposition has seen fit to suggest that this government should

adopt a policy of supply-side economics. I believe it is well known —

at least it should be well known to the members of the opposition, as

it surely is understood by the members of the government — that British

Columbia is a small, open economy. It is not a large, closed economy

like the United States. For that matter, it is not a large, closed

economy such as the main eastern provinces of Canada of Ontario and

Quebec. We are an economy that is based upon the resource industry, and

as such it is an economy that is based upon producing and selling goods

and services based upon that resource industry.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If our economy is to recover — and I believe we have now seen the framework

for recovery — then we are going to have to see B.C.'s competitive place

in the world markets once again regained. We have clearly priced ourselves out

of the international markets. It is terrific to assume that since we have natural

resources, people are always going to be desirous of utilizing those resources.

Yes, we have mineral resources, we have forest resources and we have fishing

resources, but that alone is not going to create a strong economy, Mr. Speaker.

We have got to have diversification.

We must have diversification. But are we going to get

diversification if we have the present level of compensation? Are we

going to have diversification if investment is not going to be directed

to this province? Who in their right mind is prepared to allocate

significant sums of money to lose money? Everyone is aware that the

wage component is one of the primary components in the cost of

production, while in B.C. we have that enviable position of having one

of the highest wage components of not only anywhere in Canada but, for

that matter, the world.

Until we reduce those wage or compensation demands, we are not going

to be in a position to expand our economy and to diversify as we would

all like. Although we do have a very significant resource-based

industry, by its very nature it is an export-oriented industry. Since

we have less than 10 percent of the world market in those resources of

pulp, lumber, coal and other minerals, regardless of the amount we can

produce in British Columbia, we must find markets abroad. Without those

international markets it really is irrelevant how much natural

resources we have. It really is not going to assist our high

unemployment, which I'm sure both sides of this House understand is a

serious problem that needs to be addressed. I'd suggest that this

government has addressed that problem by attempting to set in place a

re-evaluation of our goals and a re-evaluation of the necessity for

realistic compensation packages and the start on that program by

showing leadership in the public sector. The compensation stabilization

program has now been in effect some two years, and I believe our

economy is beginning to show the benefits. I note with interest that

just yesterday evening in the local media the Premier of Newfoundland

was quoted as in effect adopting the restraint compensation

stabilization program that our Premier enunciated some two years ago.

It took a whole two years before Mr. Peckford and the Newfoundland

government recognized the direction that this province stepped off in

two years ago. It's a direction that I am sure all the provinces in

Canada and, for that matter, all the jurisdictions of this world are

going to have to recognize, adopt and follow if they want to have real

recovery.

[10:15]

One specific suggestion that seemed to have relatively universal

support — at least universally among the opposition benches — was the

suggestion that our sales taxes should be reduced. As I said, we have a

relatively small, open economy, and a reduction of sales tax would not

have the effect that the opposition members are suggesting. It would

not have the effect of having a number of jobs created. If sales tax

were reduced, who would benefit? Yes, the consumer would benefit in

that it may well be easier to purchase consumer goods, but let's follow

that one step further. Who is going to produce those consumer goods? Do

British Columbians, by and large produce consumer goods? No. Provinces

in eastern Canada, in particular Ontario and Quebec, do produce some

consumer goods. But even more dramatically, the vast majority of our

consumer goods are produced outside this country. Not only would it

have a negative effect on our national balance of payments but it would

be reducing a revenue and tax base for the province. It would not be

creating more jobs. All we would be doing is creating further leakage

of B.C. funds being diffused elsewhere in Canada and in the world. It

may well help their economies, but it would not help our economy.

Rather than that type of program, surely the response that this

government has followed should be recognized. Look to capital projects

that not only

[ Page 3562 ]

involve British Columbians but B.C. supplies.

Where's the leakage in an ALRT program? Where's the leakage in an Expo

86 program? Where's the leakage in a B.C. Place program? We have B.C.

land being improved by B.C. labour and material. There's a minimal

amount of leakage. Those are the kinds of incentives and the kinds of

government programs that are going to create recovery in this province.

Those are the kinds of programs this government has embarked on. They

are also the types of programs that the opposition, for some unknown

reason, are opposed to. Clearly it's the type of program that the

people of B.C. — once they clearly understand it — will be very much in

support of.

I stand here in wholehearted support of this budget. I believe that

it is an integral part of the overall government platform on how to

bring about recovery in this province and realize the immense

opportunity of this province. I am sure that if we keep telling the

story, eventually my friends in the opposition ranks will ultimately

understand the type of economics we have to consider. Hopefully they

too will see the light of day. I speak in support of the budget, and I

am sure that the people of this province will be in support of it also.

MR. BLENCOE: Good morning. Initially I would like to complete

some ideas I was putting forth when we were discussing the amendment

which we put before this House vis-à-vis the unemployment problem in

this province. In particular, I was talking about the devastating

unemployment rates in Victoria. At the end of my speech I was trying to

give the government — and some were listening, I must admit — some

positive suggestions that could be utilized in the greater Victoria

area by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the member for

Oak Bay (Hon. Mr. Smith), who are the government representatives in

this area. I was suggesting, I think, some good ideas for the

government to consider. I wasn't just saying that the government alone

should be doing that; I was saying that the government should work with

the private sector in trying to develop some different strategies for

the Victoria area.

Let me just quickly digress a little bit about the concept of the

private sector working with the public sector. It has become quite

apparent — and is rather unfortunate — that we seem to have seen this

issue this way: either the public sector will do a major reaction to

the depression in this province, which is getting worse daily, or it

will be the private sector alone. It is currently the philosophy of the

government that there will be no initiative from the public sector, no

catalyst movement from the public sector to try to stimulate the

economy and create some consumer awareness and consumer faith in it. I

think that is where the government is going wrong. I think they have to

look at history and recognize that sound economies have always depended

upon government taking an active role in ensuring that the economy is

planned properly and structured and that certain things are taking

place. Particularly in a province like this with a tremendous

geographic diversity, it requires somebody other than just the private

sector, which as you know, Mr. Speaker, is generally just interested in

its own ends, in terms of the company, but doesn't necessarily have a

provincial or global economy view at heart. It does take somebody else

to pull that kind of viewpoint and planning together. Government

traditionally has taken a role in that area. I'm not saying that it

necessarily means you have to unload millions of taxpayers' dollars

onto the economy. But I am saying that the removal of the public sector

from the planning component and from being the facilitator between the

public and the private sector is what's creating some of the major

problems in this area. I only have to relate to the fact that this

budget did not mention the whole problem of unemployment. One of the

major ways you try to deal with that social crisis, that cancer which

is right across our province, is that the government does take a role

in trying to coordinate, stimulate and work with the private sector,

but also initiates some public initiatives.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like northeast coal.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, unfortunately we all know what northeast

coal is going to mean, and we all know that in your budget this time

you have to do a big bail-out of northeast coal for the BCR, at the

great expense of many of the programs that are essential during a

depression to those who are experiencing that depression worse than

anybody else.

I will quickly conclude about the Victoria area, and then I will

move on to talk a little more about the budget from a more provincial

perspective. I indicated only slightly that in Victoria we have a whole

maritime base that is really untapped. We have a very efficient and

dedicated fishing

section down at Fishermen's Wharf, but unfortunately

they don't have a fish plant in operation. I mentioned before, and I'm

going to continue to mention it, that we do have a fish plant ready to

operate, if only this government would agree to facilitate the concept

of worker participation and even worker ownership of such plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with us?

MR. BLENCOE: Indeed it has something to do with you.

Government must take an active role in taking a look at modern ideas in

terms of saving industry. I know this government has some philosophical

objections, shall we say, to workers participating in decision-making

or actually owning their own operations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. BLENCOE: However, it's going to take some kind of support

for that concept. You say "nonsense," but I'll tell the minister over

there and the member to my left, I'll give you a copy of the report on

the Oakland plant, which was commissioned by this government. It is

sitting on the shelf basically because it recommended that the plant is

viable and that it would work best under worker participation and a

degree of worker ownership. You have sat on that report. You have not

initiated any further studies.

Initially it may take some government support and initiative in

encouraging worker ownership of plants and industries. It's going to

take a special kind of legislation and support for that kind of

movement. What we're really talking about is the whole area of work or

participation. Now I think we have to talk in this Legislature and in

this province about the whole question of industrial democracy,

economic democracy. We have had three examples in this area where, if

the government had taken an interest and encouraged worker ownership,

we might have seen something happen. I mentioned the Oakland plant. The

Labatt brewery was another one where the workers tried desperately to

find support. They collected a substantial amount of money, but not

enough, and that plant closed down. That plant was even deemed to be

viable, but it did not fit into Labatt's scheme of things in terms

[ Page

3563 ]

of their national direction. If government had taken some interest and put

up some loans, we might, have seen that viable industry remain in the Victoria

area. What I'm saying is that there has to be resolve to take a look at

the whole question of worker ownership and participation in industry. It is

the way of the future, and it is certainly successful. We are seeing that it

alleviates many of the problems that other companies — and there are more of

them happening in other jurisdictions — experience in terms of confrontation

between management and labour. There is no question that we all have to work

on that problem.

I'd like to give the House an example of a plant in Windsor,

Ontario, that has gone to this exact concept. The Windsor Factory

Supply Co. employs 100 employees. The owner, a man called Jerry Slavic,

who is the president of his company, lets his 100 employees hire and

fire and set their own raises and working hours. It sounds like every

manager's nightmare of what happens when his employees take over, but

Slavic says it's great, and the company is profitable and growing. The

company, a major supplier of factory tools and supplies to local

industry, has been written up in business magazines across Canada as a

model of enlightenment in labour-management relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's been around here for a long time.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we had a good example in Pacific Coach

Lines, where, if we ever get to the bottom of that giveaway.... That

deal smells to high heaven. That was a great opportunity for this

government to show the working people of this province that they

believe in workers having an opportunity to own their own companies and

set their own direction. We know who bought the Vancouver run: two

people who were involved in that company and pulling in the tenders. We

know who got the other sections too, particularly the Vancouver Island

run. Not only is it jobs for the friends of government, but it's

companies for the friends of government also. There was an opportunity

for this government to show to the working people of this province that

they believe in the concept of working people being able to own their

own companies. Of course, what is going to happen is that we're going

to lose a number of jobs in that particular component.

[10:30]

I'm trying to give you an insight into this Windsor plant, Mr.

Speaker. Slavic and his partner were perfectly happy ten years ago to

sell 49 percent of Windsor Factory to their staff. "We had all the

satisfaction of starting the company and making decisions, so we

decided to let the staff find out that they can make decisions just as

well as all of us. We know we're not always right." How have the

employees done? "They found they were right most of the time and wrong

some of the time, just like us," said Slavic. The employees have power,

from buying a new truck to reorganizing the corporation, which they're

now doing. The company will make over $13 million in sales this year

alone. "At the annual meeting the employees vote on how much of the

profits they will pay out to themselves and how much will be left with

the company to expand or buy new equipment, such as computers.

Depending on how an employee's worth has been evaluated, he or she can

receive anywhere from nothing to more than $8,000 a year in bonuses or

profit-sharing."

I'm not saying there are not necessarily problems with this kind of concept;

initially there obviously are. But what we have to do in this province — this

government and all of us — is have the resolve to take a look at unique ways

of saving industry and jobs. Not only in North America are there concepts that

are thriving but don't get much attention, but there are concepts in Europe.

In particular I have to mention the Mondragon experiment in Spain, which has

been built up from nothing to a huge conglomeration of co-operatives and major

business ventures that the workers themselves own and participate in. They own

the towns, the banks and the businesses. They participate in the decisions and

run their own health care service.

We have to have the imagination and vision to look beyond the way

we've done things for over a hundred years. In this town we've had the

opportunity with Oakland, Labatt and PCL, but the government gave it

away. They gave it away to their friends and turned their backs on the

workers who worked in that company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Socredization.

MR. BLENCOE: Socredization and Fraserization; I'm going to

get to that in a minute, Mr. Member. I'll go through the Fraser

Institute and see who is a member of it these days.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not.

MR. BLENCOE: No, well they'll get to you.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close on this area and then move on to

some other concept of what's happening in the province. In this area we

have natural attributes and a marine industry that can be extended and

can be enhanced. For instance, there should be....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Maybe that member over there, the minister of industry and large business and multinationals....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: And steam baths! Maybe that minister will listen.

What we need in the greater Victoria area is some marine institute

training program. We need a comprehensive apprenticeship program, For

example, our young people going to school in James Bay have a maritime

industry only half a block away, like fishing, and a plant that's not

open. We could tie the school and the education system into what's

happening down on the waterfront. It's a challenge to you, Mr.

Minister, and to your Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who

runs the apprenticeship program for the province of British Columbia.

Let's have a little imagination and a little vision. Government

doesn't have to sit by and just say we can't do anything about

unemployment, but it doesn't necessarily have to spend millions of

dollars either. But if it had a little vision and a little imagination

and could act as a catalyst, an innovator and a facilitator with the

private sector, you never know what might happen. I believe we owe it

to the young people of this province. Twenty-six or twenty-seven

percent of the young people are unemployed in British Columbia. What

sense of future do they have? Where's their vision? What hope do they

have to have families and see their families employed? They

[ Page 3564 ]

see their education system being taken away from

them. They see university education being taken away from them, or they

see themselves getting into debt. You've taken away any chance for

those who don't have parents with large incomes to buy their way into

university. You're taking that away from them. For heaven's sake, give

the children of this province an opportunity to participate in this

province. Have the resolve to look at innovative ways to train our

young people.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not garbage, Mr. Member. You ask the

young people of this province what you're doing to them, and they will

clearly tell you. You are following a crazy philosophical position that

will die on the vine, but thousands will go down with you. That's what

you're doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: ...nothing positive.

MR. BLENCOE: I've already given you positive ideas. You don't want to listen, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not really.

MR. BLENCOE: Now we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie) here. Well, well! We all know about his prospects in

Municipal Affairs. They're all crying for him to leave, because he

doesn't understand their problems.

I have called for and have asked the government, as a positive suggestion, to call for....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no, just listen, Mr. Member. Listen, you might learn for a change, Mr. Member.

MR. MOWAT: I'm not going to learn from you.

MR. BLENCOE: That's the basic problem of this government.

They have become so entrenched and so concerned in being automatically

right that they cannot listen to any other viewpoints. When you cannot

listen to any other ideas, Mr. Member....

MR. MOWAT: I listen to what the people who elected me say.

MR. BLENCOE: You'd better go back and check with them, Mr. Member. Go back and check a little bit.

I have called for and suggested that this government, because of its

actions in terms of the economy, because of the extra increases on the

private sector, because of the bankruptcy situation and because of the

investment community's worry about what this government is doing, have

serious hearings on the economy in British Columbia. I'm not talking

about back-room meetings that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

has organized. I'm talking about public hearings on the economy with

the chambers of commerce, with the labour councils and with people who

work in this province to create the wealth in this province....

AN HON. MEMBER: We've been consulting all along.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, behind back doors, and we don't know what

you're up to. I'm saying to do it in a public fashion so the people of

British Columbia can see you're serious about the economy and that

you're prepared to hear the viewpoints of all British Columbians on the

economy and what's happening and their ideas. There is a wealth of

information out there. There is a wealth of expertise that you're

ignoring. You came down last session with all sorts of legislation that

even the business sector couldn't believe, and you did it without

consultation. Now we've got it again, even more so. Even your own

supporters are beginning to wonder. Even your own Fraser Institute

people are saying: "What are you doing? Talk to us." What I've

suggested is that this government had better go on the road and talk to

the people it's impacting upon, not only the individual British

Columbians but those who are in the business of seeing the economy run

— in public, up front. Let's have a dialogue on economic recovery in

this province. That's what we need. But unfortunately the government

hasn't responded. That's the problem. The member over there, wherever

he's from, cannot listen to any other ideas. They shut their ears to

concepts that I suppose some guru hasn't told them. If some

schizophrenic guru from the Fraser Institute hasn't said it's okay, you

won't listen to it. That's your problem.

Now I want to talk about the schizophrenic gurus from the Fraser Institute.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're just an armchair socialist.

MR. BLENCOE: Your armchair's looking all right today. How far back can you go, Mr. Member?

Let's take a look at this Fraser Institute. It hasn't really been

discussed in this House. And let's be candid about what's happening in

the province of British Columbia in terms of the economy. The Fraser

Institute: the top eight financial institutions in Canada are either

sponsors or trustees; 65 of the hundred largest companies in Canada; 20

of the 25 largest companies headquartered in British Columbia; the top

eight insurance companies in Canada; all of the top forest companies in

British Columbia. This Fraser Institute is all about power. It's about

holding on to the decision-making reins and having a government that

will bend to its will any time. It's holding on to the ways we have run

the economy for the select few, the way we've done in modern economic

times.

Let's take a look at some of the other members of this institute and

see what's happening — the gang-up of the large corporations to ensure

that they keep control and that there isn't a fair sharing of the

resources of British Columbia by all British Columbians. That's what

it's all about: ensuring that they keep control of those resources and

that the people don't share in those resources in the long term or that

British Columbians own their own resources and control their own

destiny.

Who's a member? Board of trustees, 1982: Kelly, Douglas and Co.

Ltd., T.P. Boyle, John Labatt, Abitibi-Price, the Molson Companies,

Royal Bank of Canada, the T. Eaton Company, Canadian Pacific, Dormar,

British Columbia Packers, Cadillac Fairview Corp., Daon Development

Corp., IBM Canada, Imperial Oil, Placer Development, Lindwood Holdings,

Toronto Dominion Bank, Phillips, Hager and North Ltd., Westcoast

Transmission Company, Noranda Mines Ltd., MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.,

Canadian Indemnity Company, Pemberton Securities Ltd., Candor, Genstar.

Boy!

[ Page 3565 ]

How many of those companies are running soup lines in the province of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, they're not. Here we have the biggest

corporate gang-up on the people of British Columbia that you've ever

seen in your life, and they are running this government. They are

running this government not for the people of British Columbia but for

their own vested interests and their own power trip. That's what it's

all about.

Who else have we got in here? Canada Trust Company, Simpsons, Mutual

Life Assurance Co., Rio-Algom, Storey, Boeckh and Associates, Pacific

Forest Products. It goes on and on. Norris Union Fire Insurance,

Gibralter Mines, Craigmont Mines, Drummond McCall. Look at them all.

Here we have what it's all about: that the economic control and the

destiny of this province remain in the corporate boardrooms of British

Columbia. The decisions on the destiny, setting the economic direction

of this province, is not run by the people of this province; it's run

by the few for the few. That's what the struggle is all about. That's

what all economic history has been about: the struggle of the people to

own their own resources and their own destiny and their own jobs, and

to control those jobs. That's why I was talking earlier about worker

participation and the opportunities for workers to own their own

companies. With this kind of gang-up and this kind of government,

that'll never happen in the province of British Columbia.

[10:45]

I haven't finished with the Fraser Institute. I want to tell this

House — it'll never get printed in the newspapers, however, or go on

television — who else sponsors the Fraser Institute, which is perhaps

the most serious thing happening in this province today in terms of the

people knowing what's going on. Do you know who else sponsors the

Fraser Institute? British Columbia Television Broadcasting System,

Vancouver, British Columbia. BCTV is a sponsor of the Fraser Institute.

Let's think about that. Who else in the media is a sponsor of the

Fraser Institute? The media are supposed to be objective — the

honourable fourth estate. Southam Inc., Toronto, is a sponsor of the

Fraser Institute. What happened to an objective and free press that

they are sponsoring such institutes as this? What about Thomson

Newspapers? They are a sponsor — Thomson Newspapers of Toronto. That

has serious implications, Mr. Speaker, for the information flow that

goes to the people of British Columbia, because when you are a sponsor

of an institution like this that puts out rightwing economic rhetoric

and schizophrenic propaganda, and you have the major disseminators of

information participating and sponsoring this organization, there is

something very ugly happening in the province of British Columbia.

You may laugh, because they are on your side, but they are not on

the side of the people of British Columbia, because this institute, Mr.

Speaker, does not represent the people of British Columbia. It

represents power, it represents vested interest, and it represents the

status quo in terms of the economy of British Columbia being controlled

by the people of British Columbia. When you have vested interests in

the media sponsoring it, British Columbians have got to take a close

look at that kind of activity. This won't get printed today, we know

that. Because they're sponsors, they don't want to embarrass anybody by

telling people that Southam, BCTV and Thompson Newspapers are sponsors

of this schizophrenic guru institute in this province with

ultra-rightwing economic policies. They won't tell the truth. If they

do, it would be a very pleasant surprise.

I want to talk a little about municipal affairs. I don't know how

much time I have left, but the minister is here, so I will take the

opportunity to pass a few words on about what has happened to municipal

government in the province of British Columbia.

Revenue-sharing. Municipalities are indeed troubled in the province

of British Columbia. We all know that indeed all governments are facing

all sorts of fiscal restraint and constraints, but still as a solid

message given to the current Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie) last year.... Hands off; let us do our own job; we know what

we are doing; don't constrain us.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They're a very happy group.

MR. BLENCOE: I can tell you, Mr. Minister, that they are not a very happy group, and you know darned well.

Let us talk about revenue-sharing. Property taxpayers in the

province of British Columbia, because of the shifting and shiftiness of

that minister and this government, will face major property tax

increases this year. Your reduction of 17 percent of the

revenue-sharing to the municipalities of this province can only result

in major tax increases for property tax payers. We all know that this

government, of course, hopes that the local municipality will get the

blame for that, Mr. Speaker. That often happens. I know very well,

because I was chairman of finance for the city of Victoria for two

years, when Mr. Vander Zalm did a double shift with the revenue sharing

and we were shortchanged by $2 million. We got shortchanged $2 million,

and he insisted nothing was wrong.

Interjection.

MR. B LENCOE: No? You take a look at that — it was in great

shape, Mr. Speaker. The biggest reserves they've ever had; big major

construction programs going on, employing people and in good shape....

But I have to tell you that under this government it was very

difficult, because they were always shortchanging local government on

revenue sharing, and always saying: "Oh, no, nothing is going wrong at

all."

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I know what I'm talking about. There's a 17

percent reduction this year, and yet you have $470 million for BCR out

of resource revenue, Mr. Minister. If you had not got us into such debt

with BCR and decided in one year to bail it out, because you know it is

going to be in such bad shape in the next few years, you could have had

an increase to local government to ensure that their operations

continue to operate properly. But no, you've cutback municipalities by

$35 million at a time when $471 million is sucked out of resource

revenues for B.C. Rail, merely to hide some of the northeast coal debt.

It's going to victimize every homeowner in the province of British

Columbia. Every homeowner is going to have to pay for your fiscal

mismanagement of B.C. ore and coal because you're shortchanging them

revenue to ensure property taxes stay at a realistic level, Mr.

Minister, and you know it, but you're not

[ Page 3566 ]

honest or candid enough to tell the people of British Columbia exactly what you're doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The word....

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw the word "honest" and say "candid enough." The minister hopes that the ratepayers will blame local government.

Local government is the pillar and backbone of this province. This

current administration is treating it — how can I say it? — not very

well. They are not being very fair with all those hundreds and hundreds

of local officials who try desperately to run their operations

properly. Resource revenue is a major backbone for revenue-sharing and

therefore municipalities can ensure that their books are balanced and

their operations run properly. But now we have a major shift in policy.

This government is going to take, in one chunk, half a billion dollars

to bail out BCR and B.C. Coal. Local taxpayers are going to have to pay

for that in higher taxes — there's no question about that, and the

minister knows that. As I say, if he was candid with the people of

British Columbia, he would admit to that.

I believe that the minister should at once, perhaps through the

committee structure of this House, take a look at the whole question of

property tax and real property tax in British Columbia. Because if we

continue in the way this government is going, shortchanging local

government and shifting the dollars into bad deals they have made,

local government's future is jeopardized and is indeed very bleak. I

cannot underestimate the crisis in local government in terms of their

financial problems. There has to be an admission by this government

that there is a financial problem for local governments because of the

shifting in priorities.

The minister is going to leave, because he knows that what I say is

quite accurate. Some $60 million has been taken away from local

government over the last two years. We all know where the money has

been put; it's to bail out the numerous problems you've created in your

projects. We all know that the worst ones are BCR and B.C. Coal. The

local taxpayers have not got $60 million over the last two years;

therefore their taxes have had to go up correspondingly. The minister

should admit to those municipalities that he has indeed shortchanged

them, that in future he will have their real interests at heart;

otherwise, local government's future is in serious trouble, as I've

already indicated.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other area that I want to talk about that

is of obvious concern to 355,000 tenants and their families in the

province of British Columbia. People in ridings and communities across

this province do not own their own homes; they rent them. Over the last

year there has been such turmoil in those homes because of this

government's attitudes toward tenants and their rights. With Bill 5 —

which of course has died on the order paper — the cancellation of the

office of the rentalsman was the way they were going. Eviction without

cause, eliminating rent review — a fair review of unfair rent increases

— clearly indicating that this government is going to take the

interests of landlords and owners of property.... Those interests are

far higher than the rights of tenants and their opportunity to ensure

that there is some security of tenure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tenure?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes. Many people, Mr. Member, have lived in

rental accommodation for 10, 15 or 20 years — it is their home. And

what you have done to thousands of British Columbians is to create fear

among those people that you are going to go back to the feudal

Victorian times in terms of landlord-tenant relationships. That's what

this government intends to do. Tenants will have virtually no rights.

We know we're now going to have a mock rentalsman's office with no

protection for those people who will work in that office — government

appointments. The Landlord and Tenant Act will be virtually useless,

because there will be no control over evictions. There will be economic

eviction. Landlords will be able to put rents up as much as they like,

even if it's not the market value for that apartment. There will be no

review procedure for a 50 percent or 60 percent increase. The landlords

will be able to do as they will. Is that fair? Is it right for 355,000

tenants in British Columbia to know that they have no protection? The

answer from the minister responsible for the rentalsman is: "Well, if

they don't like it, they can move. They can go somewhere else." That's

the attitude. The attitude towards tenants is that it's not really a

home, it's just a temporary situation; no one really wants to live in.

rental accommodation. I can tell this government that there are

thousands and thousands of British Columbians who live in those places,

and they consider them their homes. They want to know that they have

rights. The government has certain obligations to ensure that those

rights are protected, that there will be a fair hearing and that

there's equity between the owner and the renter of property. That's

very important. It would appear that under this government we're not

going to have that.

We haven't seen the new bill, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the government

to seriously consider what they're doing to 355,000 tenants and their families

in the province of British Columbia. They are a considerable proportion

of the population of British Columbia. They are entitled to the assurance that

there is fairness in the system — that they have the right to a fair hearing

and a fair review and that they cannot be evicted by 100 percent or 200 percent

rent increases without some review procedure. Certainly I would like to see

the government protect those people who arbitrate those decisions. We will

have more discussions on the office of the rentalsman in future.

[11:00]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and very

happy to be able to stand here today in this Legislature and support

the motion before this House. The budget which the Minister of Finance

recently tabled will go down in history as a budget of vision and of

courage. It's a budget that will place the taxpayers of British

Columbia in the years ahead in one of the best positions of any

province in Canada. It was just this morning, I think, that I was

reading in one of the local newspapers that in the province of

Newfoundland they have had to freeze wages and cut back government

spending.

I remember being at a first ministers' conference in Ottawa about

two years ago, just before we brought in our restraint program, where

our Premier urged the federal government and the other Premiers in

Canada to join with him in a cross-Canada restraint program. They would

have no part of it. They said: "British Columbia; you go out there and

hang yourselves out on the line. You take the political beating. If it

works, we might follow; but if it doesn't, you've had

[ Page

3567 ]

it. We think you're nuts anyway." Shortly after

that, what did René Lévesque do in that great socialist province of

Quebec? The defunct leader of the socialist party, revered....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Made love to him, yes. He said: "Oh, let's

you and I hold hands across Canada, and make it into a truly socialist

nation." What did they do recently? They froze everything and they cut

back. We don't hear any of that from the NDP. I hate to attack them,

because you only shoot at something that's worthwhile. But I must say,

in passing, that the NDP in this province are continuing the same type

of barnyard politics that they've had in this province for the last 50

years. That's exactly what it is: a lot of baying and bellyaching, but

not much substance. It's no wonder that the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) said that the NDP has been an irrelevant force in the

political scene in British Columbia. It's no wonder that member who had

the intestinal fortitude to stand up and tell the members of the NDP

exactly where it's been at for the first few years.... I’ll tell you, I

bet I can see the strips on his back that they took off in caucus.

The previous speaker, Mr. Speaker, representing that irrelevant

party didn't really say very much, so I think he's trying to follow the

leader.

I don't wish to comment on what the opposition parties have been

saying, except to set the record straight on a couple of items that the

lame-duck leader over there said. I was reading, with a great deal of

interest, the report: "Barrett Hurls Sarcasm at High-flying Socreds."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment please. From time to time the

Chair has cautioned members about using the term "lame-duck." I find it

offensive, and also you should not say the name of a member in the

assembly.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. I certainly wouldn't want to bring abuse to the duck family, particularly Peking ducks.

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to this

article and some of the

comments by the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand him. It

makes good political sense to attack anybody who goes out and tries to

promote business for the province of British Columbia, but I wish he'd

get his facts straight. He says: "Government estimates pegged $545,460

for ministerial travel for the 1984-85 financial year, compared with

$215,000 a year earlier." Now the taxpayers of British Columbia provide

that NDP caucus with high-paid research people. The fact of the matter

happens to be — and I'm just saying this to set the record straight —

that in the 1983-84 estimates there was $445,250 allocated for external

travel, not the $215,000 that he mentioned. This year it has increased

by $100,000, because in the old saying, "When times get tough, the

tough get going," and that's exactly what we'll be doing. We'll be

putting more emphasis out there in the international marketplace. The

Leader of the Opposition is the last one who should talk about external

travel, because when he was Premier he went to Japan and played "rugby

ball." Then he took a number of members of his caucus on a

tree-planting mission to China. Nothing wrong with that; we didn't

condemn that. It's good relations. But their cabinet ministers flew to

every socialist country in the world trying to pick up ideas on how

they could further socialize British Columbia. At least when we travel

we're trying to promote business — trying to assist our industries in

selling into the international marketplace. I just thought I'd set the

record straight.

Just in passing, since there seems to be a great deal of controversy

surrounding the business that we are trying to do in the international

marketplace and the more aggressive role we are playing in the

international marketplace, let me explain something to you. There has

been pressure from time to time on this ministry and on the government

to establish offices in places like Tokyo, Hong Kong and Germany, and

we might do it. But at the present time we are working with the federal

government facilities in those countries. We're going to spend over

$545,000 this year in travel, not only by the minister but indeed by

staff, particularly in helping trade missions through my ministry —

which, by the way, the NDP started when they were government, so they

are really condemning their own policies, if you want to really look at

it objectively.

But the province of Alberta, our neighbouring province, for

instance, has a full-time minister travelling in the international

marketplace — not only that, but they spend $3.5 million maintaining

offices in the external marketplace. Yet here is this NDP, instead of

standing up and giving us the devil for not spending more and being

more aggressive in the international marketplace, which is what they

should be doing, standing up and grabbing headlines. It's the same old

type of barnyard politics that has been coming from that opposition for

a long time. No wonder the member for Prince Rupert says that they're

an irrelevant party as far as politics go.

Alberta has an office in Tokyo with full-time staff on the scene.

They have an office in Hong Kong and they have an office in London,

which we do as well and which is traditional. But they also have an

office in New York and one in Houston. Because it is on the North

American continent, you can get there easily and always be on the

scene. That's what our neighbouring province has. Quebec has offices in

Tokyo, Hong Kong, France, Germany and London costing them millions of

dollars. Yet we get complaints from that defunct opposition over there

who are trying to grab headlines. They don't understand the

international marketplace and are saying that we're taking food out of

the mouths of babes and children and taking money away from education.

What we are doing now is putting British Columbia and British Columbian

industry in a competitive position so that the young people of today

will have a future tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment about the future and how British

Columbia fits into that future. On a plane returning from Hong Kong I recently

read where an adviser to the Nixon administration who had been making a trip

through the Orient espousing U.S. politics made a great statement: "The

United States' policies have turned from the Atlantic to the Pacific."

I recently heard a politician from the federal government in Ottawa make this

statement: "Canada is now turning from the Atlantic to the Pacific."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The reason I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, is to tell you that this

government recognized back in 1976 that the economic future of the

world would be in the Pacific basin. We didn't have all the answers,

but at least we have been in that arena and have assisted our private

sector by taking trade missions and talking about British Columbia's

interest in the Pacific.

[ Page 3568 ]

We have had policies wherein not only did we talk about the future

being in the Pacific but we put our money where our mouths are. The

focus from British Columbia has been to the Pacific, and British

Columbia has led the rest of Canada, kicking and screaming, into the

Pacific Rim where the future action will be.

I find it encouraging that a number of senior officials directing

trade and export policy in Ottawa have served as ambassadors in the

Pacific Rim. They know firsthand the problems, challenges and

opportunities, and hopefully they will have some influence on Ottawa

policies with regard to the Pacific Rim in the future. British Columbia

has played a major role in bringing that focus about. But so has our

business community. They have had a dual role to play. Those who have

representation in those Pacific Rim countries have to feed back the

information to their home offices, and they also have to be aware of

what is going on at home to assist them in their dealings in the

international marketplace.

British Columbia has been a leader in North America in putting

policies into place that will assist us in the decades ahead in the

Pacific Rim. I might say in passing that as British Columbia is

Canada's gateway to the Pacific, so are California, Washington and

Oregon. But I am proud to say here in this Legislature today that this

government and this province have done more to put the infrastructure

in place so that we can serve the Pacific Rim basin than have any of

those states in the United States. British Columbia is providing

leadership. We have worked very well in the Japanese and Korean

markets. We have assisted our private sector in those markets, and we

have made a lot of progress.

[11:15]

When I say that we have put our money where our mouth is, let me

explain exactly what I mean. In the period that we have been government

in British Columbia, we have built complete new major port facilities

on Vancouver Island at Nanaimo, the purpose of which is to serve

Pacific Rim trade and to assist companies on Vancouver Island to have

better facilities for their growing trade with the Pacific Rim. I

mentioned about a year ago that trade through the Nanaimo port in 1982,

which was one of the years of the recession, was greater than it was in

1981. Had those port facilities not been built at Nanaimo, the industry

on Vancouver Island would have been hamstrung, as are many businesses

in the western United States, in serving this growing market. Roberts

Bank, our bulk commodity loading facility, has tripled its space and

capacity. Why? Because we know that the action is going to be in the

Pacific Rim. We are providing the infrastructure and the port

facilities so that our industries can serve that market.

We urged the federal government to change its legislation on ports

so that the port of Prince Rupert would have local autonomy and could

make the decisions and upgrade their facilities to serve the Pacific

Rim market. We were instrumental in urging the federal government to

put new port and grain facilities at the port of Prince Rupert. Why?

Because we know the action is going to be in the Pacific. We know that

if we're going to serve that market we have to have the port

facilities. There has been an investment in this province of over

three-quarters of a billion dollars in port facilities in the last five

years, because of the urging of this government. That's leadership.

That's what it's all about: not just idle talk, but indeed putting our

money and the infrastructure in place to serve that market. Don't you

think for one minute that I don't tell our customers in the Pacific Rim

basin that that's exactly what we've done, because it augurs well for

the future. We will be there to serve them with the facilities. We will

be a reliable supplier.

Over and above that, about two years ago our Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) opened a new

Asian centre at the University of British Columbia. That centre is one

of the finest you will find anywhere in the Pacific Rim, and it even

outshines that great Asian centre in the island of Hawaii. That was

because we wanted to put emphasis on the Pacific Rim. We wanted those

who come here to visit from the Pacific Rim to study and to learn that

we had the facilities at the University of British Columbia so that

they would have a place to feel at home and so that they could go there

and study, and so that our own students could learn more about the

Pacific Rim. That is not only idle talk; that's putting your money

where your mouth is. That's what this government has done to look to

the future of the Pacific Rim.

This new pavilion which the federal government is building in

downtown Vancouver, which will be a trade and convention centre, was

started and promoted by this little government. We pushed and we shoved

and finally got the federal government to do it. That is there in

Vancouver to serve as a gateway item to the Pacific, where those in the

Pacific can come and feel at home and do their business, where industry

from the rest of Canada can show their goods and services to the

Pacific Rim, and where Pacific Rim conferences and trade shows can be

held. That isn't just idle talk, saying the future lies in the Pacific.

That's putting a facility in place to serve the future of this province

and this country in that great Pacific Rim basin where the economic

activity is going to be.

In 1986 this little province of British Columbia, with 2.7 million

people, will host and greet the world. It's going to be a

transportation and communications theme, but all expositions are really

economic expositions. That didn't just happen. A lot of work went into

bringing Expo 86 to Vancouver. It wasn't given to us. Why did we go

after that? Because we wanted to bring to Vancouver a focus on the

Pacific. We wanted to bring the Pacific Rim nations to Vancouver to let

them see what British Columbia is all about. Fifteen million visitors

will come to this little province and that great city of Vancouver to

find out what British Columbia has done to put in place the facilities

to serve the Pacific Rim in the decades ahead, Mr. Speaker. It will

give British Columbia industries and British Columbia firms and British

Columbia institutes and British Columbia educational institutes the

opportunity to show the world what we have here and how we are prepared

to meet those challenges. That's leadership. That's not just idle talk.

New port facilities, Asian centre at UBC, new trade and convention

centre and Expo '86 to show the Pacific Rim what British Columbia's all

about.

What else have we done? We urged the federal government, against

great opposition from the NDP, to do away with the Crow rate so our

western transportation system could be upgraded to serve the Pacific

Rim, because that's where the action is going to be. That's not just

idle talk. What will that do for British Columbia? Provide hundreds and

hundreds and thousands of jobs during construction and ensure that

western Canadian industries will have a transportation system in place

so that indeed we can serve the burgeoning market in the Pacific Rim.

Had it not been for British Columbia siding with the federal government

and urging them to get on with this job, had they listened to the NDP,

that wouldn't have happened. Yet they stand up here and pontificate

about jobs

[ Page

3569 ]

in the future. They don't know what they're talking about. It's barnyard politics, Mr. Speaker.

Not only that but our British Columbia Railway is the most modern

railway you will find anywhere in the world: most modern in

communications system; most modern in a new, scientific,

high-technology industry for car-locating system built by a

high-technology firm in West Vancouver; and most modern technology in

electrification of our new branch line. That railway is being upgraded

and run like a business should be. Why? To serve the industry of

British Columbia in tapping those Pacific Rim markets. That's not just

idle talk. That's not just saying that the future lies in the Pacific

Rim. That's doing something about it. New port facilities, new

transportation facilities, a new trade and convention centre, a new

Asian centre and bringing Expo. I want to tell you, this government

doesn't just talk; this government gets out and acts. We put our money

where our mouth is. We knew where the future was, and we have dragged

the rest of Canada into that future kicking and screaming. I'm not

given to bragging, but there has been so much controversy about the

British Columbia Railway recently that I want to tell you that the most

vocal critic of the British Columbia Railway — the ex-Premier of this

province and the ex-leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Barrett) —

used to be president of the British Columbia Railway. When he became

president the railway was well run and was making a profit. Three years

later he managed to do the same as he did with the economy of British

Columbia and put it in the red. The last year that ex-leader of the NDP

was president of that railway, it had an operating loss of $22 million.

This year just past, under the stewardship of some free-enterprisers

and free from political interference....

MR. SKELLY: Ho, ho, ho.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you laugh. That's a shallow laugh, my

friend — part of the irrelevant party. The railway last year will be

seen to have turned a handsome operating profit of approximately.... I

can safely say well over $35 million. We don't hear too much talk about

that from the Leader of the Opposition. We have tried not only to get

ourselves into the position of having the infrastructure to serve that

great and growing Pacific Rim market, but indeed we have made British

Columbia a more attractive place in which Pacific Rim money can come

and invest.

I am pleased to say that we have influenced Ottawa so that FIRA —

our Foreign Investment Review Agency, which we have been very vocal

against — can now be used as an instrument to promote investment in

Canada. Had the NDP had their way it would still have been used as an

instrument against investment in Canada. I remember a few years ago

when that defunct leader of the NDP stood in this House and chastised

me because I had okayed 98 foreign investments in the province of

British Columbia. See how shallow they are, how wrong they were — how

wrong they have always been? Yet we hear the Leader of the Opposition,

like a cornered rat trying to claw his way out, trying to get some

credibility, but using the same old barnyard politics.

World exports have grown since the early sixties one and a half

times faster than world production. This really means that the world is

becoming a global trader. The world has been a trader since the days of

the early traders when they used to run ships into Shanghai; but as

different countries specialize in different commodities, world trade is

increasing by leaps and bounds. Canadian exports in the years 1960 to

1980 increased from less than one-fifth of total production to almost

one-third.

Today in Canada about 20 percent of the workforce is involved in

producing goods and services for export. That is why it is so important

that even the opposition party recognize that our future lies in

exporting our goods and services. That is why it is so important to

have labour union leaders who recognize that if they are going to have

jobs for the people in their unions, Canada and British Columbia must

be competitive in the international marketplace. It is high time

everybody recognized that our economy is based on exports, and that

without exports we will not survive. I have used this example in the

House before, Mr. Speaker, and I will use it again, Scotland used to

have a great shipbuilding industry, but the union leaders got so many

amenities for the people employed in those shipyards that they no

longer build ships. It is my prayer that that never happens to our

pulp, lumber, mining and manufacturing industries. We must be

competitive, we must be reliable, and we must have a quality product.

Those union leaders who are inward looking, looking only at British

Columbia and trying to make political points by not telling their

workers the true facts of the competitive world, are not doing justice

to themselves, their unions, their workers or Canada. It is time they

became more responsible.

We sometimes think that in British Columbia we only export our

natural resources, but we have twice as many exports of manufactured

goods per export dollar as any other province in Canada. That may come

as somewhat of a surprise to many who like to say that all we are doing

is exporting our raw materials. Mr. Speaker, again I want to remind you

that we have raw materials, and we are changing to manufactured

gradually. It's not coming as swiftly as we would like it to come, and

I'll tell you why: because British Columbia does not have the

favourable labour management relations that some other areas have.

Anybody who wants to improve manufacturing and bring firms here has to

recognize that someday we may have to change some of the rules if we're

going to increase our percentage of exports in the manufacturing field.

All you have to do is look at what is happening in the rest of the

world. If we want to change we'll have to change some of the rules. It

isn't just going to happen.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up.

I don't want to belabour the point, but I do want to say that I'm

very happy to support this budget because it goes a long way toward

helping our business community be more competitive. I'm proud to be

able to travel in the world and say: if you want to invest, do so in

British Columbia, because we're one of the few provinces in Canada that

had the fortitude to bring in a restraint program. We're the only

province in Canada that brought in a smaller budget, so we're not

taxing your future profits. Come to British Columbia and invest. We're

not spending your profits today. We will have the lowest tax regime in

Canada in the future because we had the intestinal fortitude, the

vision and the courage to do what had to be done. I predict that some

day other politicians in Canada will wake up and follow what has

happened in British Columbia so that Canada can indeed take her

rightful place in the future that is going to be in the Pacific Rim.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, one thing you have to have when

you're listening to the member for South Peace River is a good set of

eardrums. It has been very quiet in here

[ Page 3570 ]

this morning; I don't know why the minister felt he had to raise his voice that way and shout and wave.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I see. Well, maybe it's a good thing that he

uses all that volume, Mr. Speaker, because he really doesn't have that

much to say.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I thought you sat down. Are you finished?

Mr. Speaker, I noticed two or three things that the minister

mentioned which I must comment on. One is that he said the great

policies of this government are helping business in this province. I

notice that the figures show business bankruptcies to be up 23 percent

over last year, and that B.C. is the only province in Canada where the

bankruptcy rate is increasing. So it is pretty clear that the kind of

help offered to business or anyone in this province by this government

needs to have a second look.

He talks about how well B.C. Rail is faring under this

administration. Why is it, then, that we have to cut the miserly amount

we're already giving to those people who have to turn to Human

Resources in order to survive — we're cutting them back by $25 a month

when we are paying $471 million out of the same budget to that B.C.

Rail that's doing so well under this administration?

We heard a lot about the Pacific Rim countries. The minister tried

to justify the huge, increase in the amount allowed for ministerial

flights all over the globe. He talked about the great Pacific Rim

developments. That's the same minister who used our taxpayers' money to

fly to Australia to try to sell them coal. What else do you need to say

about a Minister of Industry and Small Business:Development who would

use taxpayers' money to fly to Australia to try to sell coal? This is

the minister who loves to travel. He's always flying off somewhere. I

assume he'll continue to fly off somewhere. The only thing he does, I'm

afraid, is create more debt for the children of the province to have

to, pay off in future years.

We heard some comments from the Minister of Finance when the federal

budget was introduced. He went on and on about the terrible debt that

the federal government had created. That Minister of Finance has

created more debt in a shorter period of time than has the federal

government. When I hear these back-benchers talking about the great job

the Minister of Finance is doing and at the same time criticizing

Ottawa for the db, t they are creating, they're not being very honest

with this Legislature. They're not presenting the facts. This is the

most, expensive, irresponsible government that we have seen. The debt

they are creating for the people of this province is absolutely

unparalleled. Yet they continue to adopt an economic philosophy and an

economic approach that harms not only the people of British Columbia,

but the entire economy as well. What are they up to over there? Are

they so ingrained in a right-wing philosophy that they can't see the

damage they are creating?

They try to fob the blame onto Ottawa every chance they get. They

say that a tax increase is going to make the economic situation in

British Columbia even worse; then, to try to justify the eight-point

increase in income tax, they blame Ottawa. They blame Ottawa for not

giving enough money for post-secondary education. Yet Ottawa — and I

think this is a very important point — paid 88 percent of the operating

costs of the universities last year. Then they blame Ottawa for

spending money. Ottawa increased the university budget by 7 percent

last year; it will be a 6 percent increase for this year. What does

this government do? It cuts the university operating budgets by 5

percent.

What it all means, Mr. Speaker, is that they are governing for the elite, because

when they cut 5 percent from the operating costs of those universities even

though Ottawa has increased its share by 6 percent, it means only one thing:

only those students whose parents earn enough money to help them through university

are going to be able to attend. That sort of attitude, that sort of approach,

develops a very elitist society, and they are governing for the elite. They

are governing for those people who already have money; for those companies

that are already major multinationals, such, as the forest industry companies

that have been given millions and millions of dollars which should have been

coming in to help pay for the services of the taxpayers of this province, but

which they have not collected. One of the major scandals is the fact that they

have refused to collect the stumpage owed by these major multinational corporations.

Who are they governing for? Why have they not moved to ensure that that money

which rightfully belongs, to the people of the province for their timber, has

not come into the treasury? They have known about this for years. It's been

made very clear that the Premier has known about it for a year, and maybe even

longer. They have an opportunity under the existing Forest

Act to ensure that those moneys are:collected, and yet what do they do?

They cut back on the money to universities, elementary schools, welfare

recipients, legal aid services and services to I children and senior I

s. It's the people of this province who are paying I an outrageous sum

of money for the squandering of funds by this government and for their

lack of, interest in collecting what is due to the people through their

resources. They take care of the wealthy and of the major corporations.

Those people who can least afford it get the least attention from this

government, and they're the ones paying the highest price for this

government's inability to get any kind of recovery going in this

province.

More and more economists are telling us that the actions of the

government in terms of economics are in fact hindering recovery in

British Columbia. They're destroying the recovery. They're making it

harder for those people on low and fixed incomes to find a way out,

because what happens when you destroy a recovery is that there are no

jobs created. The debt gets greater, and the people who are already

pinching their pennies are forced to pay more to government for its

daily operation. So when I hear this pious talk from this group about

the fact that they are managing the economy,

[ Page 3571 ]

well, or their criticism of Ottawa for its debt,

then I say it's time for them to look at themselves and see what

they're doing not only to the economy but to the people they are

supposed to be governing for.

Yesterday we heard that the Prime Minister of this country is going

to step down. He will no longer lead the Liberal Party. I did not want

this opportunity to go by, Mr. Speaker, without expressing my gratitude

for the work that the Prime Minister has done in terms of his peace

initiative. When we have a person of the stature of the Prime Minister

of Canada take a personal interest in disarmament, and then be willing

to travel throughout the world in order to propose this peace

initiative to the major powers, I think we in Canada can and must be

proud. Even if the Prime Minister's initiative on this particular issue

is not successful at this time, it is my hope that because he was

willing to make that effort, because he was willing to travel day after

day in order to make his proposals, other leaders will follow his

example and take up the whole massive job that must be undertaken if in

fact we're going to ensure the survival of mankind.

[11:45]

There is no issue that is more pressing, and as you watch the news

every night and read the newspaper and magazine articles, it is easy to

recognize that there are so many centres on this globe that have the

potential of flaring up and resulting in an all-out nuclear holocaust.

I'm pleased that the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) has placed on

the order paper a resolution which asks this House to give the praise

that is due to the Prime Minister for that particular initiative.

Unfortunately, in the two major documents that have been presented

to this Legislature by the government in this session, namely the

throne speech and the budget speech, there is not one word that refers

to the most pressing issue that is facing all of mankind today, and

that is the issue of the nuclear arms buildup. Not one word. The member

for Kootenay has brought in this motion, but the government of British

Columbia, in the two major documents that have been presented to this

Legislature so far, have ignored this issue entirely. You may say that

it's an international issue and something that has to be handled at the

national level, but in my view the issue is so serious that it has to

be dealt with not only at the international and national levels, but at

every provincial, municipal and regional district level — and, as a

matter of fact, by each and every one of us as individuals. If we do

not continue to speak out on this issue, if we do not continue to press

for nuclear disarmament, then I'm afraid it won't matter how much debt

is left by which government, because there won't be anybody around to

pay it.

I'm hoping that this provincial government will make some moves and

some statements, will pressure Ottawa, will let the people of this

province know that they too are concerned about this nuclear issue, and

will set the stage for more activity on the part of the citizens of

this province to work for nuclear disarmament. I'm afraid that in the

past the government has attempted to put roadblocks in front of

municipalities that wanted to place before the people within their

municipalities a question about nuclear disarmament, municipalities

that wanted to know how the people of their communities felt about

nuclear disarmament. The Minister of Municipal Affairs put every

roadblock he could think of in front of the municipalities that wanted

to carry out that particular vote. Some municipalities felt strongly

enough that they ignored what the Minister of Municipal Affairs had

said, ignored the fact that the provincial government had shown no

interest in the issue, and went ahead anyway with a vote on nuclear

disarmament. The people of the province and of the country agreed that

it is an issue of such importance that they were willing to go and

express their opinions, saying: "Yes, it is time we disarmed."

I don't know how this government can get up and look at itself in

the mirror in the mornings, when it knows that there are so many people

in the province facing serious financial problems. This government is

responsible for the cuts in services that these people require. This

government is responsible for its lack of initiative in terms of

planning the economy and creating employment for our people, and this

government, at the same time, is prepared to allow the major

international forest companies to walk off with the timber of this

province without paying the stumpage rates they are supposed to be

paying. How can they possibly look at themselves in the mirror in the

morning when we know that they know that these forest companies are

getting away with our timber scot-free and that it is a major scandal

in this province? Yet they take no action whatsoever. What do they do

instead? They only cut further the services to the people of this

province. I don't know how they can face themselves. How can they

justify that kind of action, except that they are out to protect their

friends, to ensure that their friends are employed and to ensure that

their friends obtain the assets of this province for virtually no

payment?

Just look at the bus sales. First of all they pay a consulting firm,

which happens to be made up of the Deputy Minister of Labour and her

husband, a fee — I think it was $35,000 that consulting term acquired

of taxpayers' money — in order to tell the government how to sell

Pacific Coach Lines. They end up selling Pacific Coach Lines without

any guarantee that the people on Vancouver Island are going to obtain

the same kind of service that they have enjoyed in the past. They don't

care about that. They've sold off this bus line for about half of what

it's worth to their friends, with no guarantee that the service will

remain on Vancouver Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't care what you say.

MS. SANFORD: What is the guarantee? There is no guarantee.

Again, it is those people who are at the bottom end of the income

scale who are going to be asked to pay higher fees to ride those buses,

who are going to be asked to accept a service that is far more limited

than it is now, in the interest of privatization and taking care of

their friends.

[ Page 3572 ]

What about Beautiful British Columbia? There's another example of

selling off assets that are a value to this province for virtually

nothing — again, to their friends.

I have no confidence whatsoever in this government protecting the

farmland on Colony Farm. What's going to happen to that Colony Farm,

Mr. Speaker? Are they going to find a farmer who has $5 million or $6

million to spare who is going to go out and buy that land in order to

farm it? I have no confidence, and I have a great fear that that Colony

Farm is going to be further subdivided and is going to be sold off and

used for purposes other than agricultural purposes. I'm only making a

prediction based on past experience, that's all. We know what your

attitude is.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the House Leader is prepared to accept....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, you want more.

There are a number of other issues I would like to deal with, but

the time remaining really isn't enough time for me to get into it, so I

will move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada