1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page 7499 ]

CONTENTS

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7499

Mr. Hanson –– 7499

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7502

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7505

Mr. Stupich –– 7508

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to

join me in

welcoming my constituency assistant, Shirley Cherwak, to the

Legislature, and also a good hard-working New Democrat, Barbara

Barrett, and her daughter Jackie, who are here today from Port Alberni.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome

the assistant government agent for Prince George, Miss Jeanne Blue.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned

debate on the

principal motion on the budget address.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like

to congratulate

once again the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for the budget

that was brought down recently. It's obvious that there is little to

criticize in the budget, even though attempts were made to probe those

who are known to be critical of the government to offer some comments

about the budget.

I think the people of British Columbia were somewhat comforted

the budget. It was a budget that reflected the efforts of the

government over the past number of years to try to keep costs under

control and to maximize the use of taxpayers' dollars, in sharp

contrast to other budgets we've seen released across the country

recently.

I think the Minister of Finance has provided a budget that is

even-handed, that provides the opportunity of growth without imposing

onerous taxes upon the people of British Columbia. I think it is a

tribute to the efforts of the government that many of the ideas and

concepts which have been introduced over the past number of years seem

to be working quite well, along with the cooperation of other levels of

government, other organizations, business, industry, labour and

citizens in the province who wish to take

part in renewal in British

Columbia. So I think the budget speech — and the budget itself, for

that purpose — is something the people of the province appreciate very

much.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last evening of mentioning

some

specifics to try to point out that while there are differing views with

respect to the progress in our province, there are certainly examples

of where progress and renewal are occurring in my constituency of

Richmond, and there are examples of the development that has taken

place and the very positive attitude that the people involved have

shown us.

The municipality of Richmond, and the school board as I

mentioned

last night, have been very, very positive in embracing what programs

are available to ensure that we are getting the maximum use of the

taxpayers' dollar for services offered to our citizens. Richmond has

done an excellent job.

I have one final comment I didn't have the opportunity of

mentioning

last evening with respect to the Richmond School Board. As you know,

the Minister of Education, (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) through the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), is offering an Excellence in Education fund.

There are those in the province who have suggested that that fund

should be used to supplement the budgets of some school districts that

claim they are underfunded.

The Richmond School Board, by way of conversation with myself

and

others, has developed various programs it believes would be eligible

for the Excellence in Education fund. I was speaking with an official

the other evening. He said: "We are not going to play a political game;

we are going to ask for our share. We've developed a half dozen

programs we think would qualify and we are going to the Minister of

Education and the Minister of Finance to say: 'Look, we think this

program fits the criteria. Send us the money and we'll put the program

in place."'

In contacting other school districts on the lower mainland,

the

official advised me, several said: "We're not putting any applications

forward. We're not going to take

part in that program. We'll show them

that we're not about to play their game." That's fine. The more who

have that attitude, the more money for Richmond's Excellence in

Education programs. If other school districts wish not to apply, that's

their business. I can tell you that the people in Richmond certainly

are going to be applying to see if they qualify for $2 million or $3

million to assist in Excellence in Education. Good for them. That's the

type of attitude that's going to see the program develop in this

province to give our youngsters a better opportunity to be educated and

thus employed once they're out of the school system.

MR. SKELLY: What school boards are reducing

them?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, you'll find out, Mr.

Leader of the

Opposition, because many of the members on those boards are probably

members of your party, so I'm sure they'll let you know. You could get

the member for Vancouver East to do the research for you. I guarantee

it will cost you no more than $80,000.

We have a great deal to look forward to in 1986 in British

Columbia,

a great deal to look forward to in a positive way. There is no way the

opposition is going to stop the development and progress in this

province, even though they may deem it to be politically opportunistic

to do so. It will not happen. The province is on the move, and

certainly certain constituencies are on the move because of a positive

attitude. So we'll see what the future brings to our province and our

municipalities and our constituencies. But those who are of a positive

attitude certainly have the opportunity in British Columbia to engage

themselves in what is known as renewal.

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

I am very pleased to offer my congratulations again to the

Minister

of Finance. I think the budget was very appropriate for the times. I

think it is a forward-looking budget, and I look forward to a very

exciting 1986 for British Columbia and British Columbians. Thank you.

MR. HANSON: When you hear the government

extolling the

virtues of these three new special funds, it reminds me of a

homebuilder building a tarpaper shack over a 30-year period, and then

trying to hang up silk curtains in the tarpaper shack. That's really

what we have before us in this province

[ Page 7500 ]

with respect to these three special

funds, because

the accumulation

of neglect in our forests is a tragedy. It is a tragedy deeply

understood by all British Columbians that the government that has

presided over the demise, the destruction, of our forests, by not

properly reforesting, is now setting up — once again prior to a

provincial election — a special fund to provide the impression that

they care about reforestation and the proper management of our forests.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a joke if it wasn't so tragic. I'm

going to

be presenting in my talk today the figures to verify and back up the

tragedy — the neglect, the total failure — in the management of our

forests. The government is attempting to hang onto power by promising

that next time, if they're given the mandate by the people, they won't

allow this terrible mismanagement of our forest resource to continue.

What a sad joke, Mr. Speaker.

The other fund, the Excellence in Education. This term

"excellence"

came from the L.A. Raiders football team: commitment to excellence.

Those people are committed to excellence. But this government is

committed only to try to portray themselves to the public as caring

about our forests, that they care about education, and that they care

about health care. The people of this province know very deeply that

this government does not care and has never cared about forests,

children, or the proper access to quality health care in this province.

Do you recall the forest and range resource analysis of 1984,

Mr.

Speaker? It was a very comprehensive assessment of our forest lands and

the way they have been neglected in this province. The report clearly

stated that our forests were in a very poor state; "that the

long-established trend to take the best first has been accelerated."

Mr. Speaker, what that means is that the tradition of high-grading our

trees, mining, taking the very largest, the very best, from the best

sites easiest of access, and not replanting, has been the trend in our

province. That trend accelerated over the last five years. The not

sufficiently restocked lands of British Columbia actually increased on

the medium and good sites, the very best sites of our province for

growing trees. The not sufficiently restocked lands increased by 42

percent in the last five years.

What a tragedy, Mr. Speaker! Here we have this deathbed

repentance

of a government on the eve of a provincial election, sometime in the

ensuing months: "Please give us authority again to mismanage the

resources of this province." Mr. Speaker, the people of this province

don't believe this government anymore. I hear it everywhere I go: they

have no credibility. They don't believe them anymore. They don't want

this government anymore. They want a government that cares about our

forests and will be sincere about it every day, not just prior to a

provincial election.

The number of seedlings in this province has increased over

the last

few years. But when you understand that every year in the harvesting of

our forests the number of seedlings planted falls short by about

one-third, that we fall back every year in the amount of land that is

adequately restocked, you understand that the silvicultural practices

of the province are grossly insufficient. It's actually criminal. When

you look at the different regions of this province, at how overcutting

and insufficient restocking has occurred by region, you find that the

person now in charge of the forests of this province, who has recently

come from wreaking havoc in our public instruction system — that

minister who for seven years has represented the Prince George region,

which is by far the worst for insufficient restocking.... Over the last

five years the amount of land cut and not restocked increased by 116

percent in the area represented by the present Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Can you believe what that forebodes for the future?

Even basic silvicultural activities, on which the 1984 forest

range

and resource analysis report focused.... They said that the required

standard has never been maintained, even to meet our annual allowable

cut. Every year the annual allowable cut is established, and restocking

has never, under the 30 years of Social Credit, met the annual

allowable cut.

The total of not sufficiently restocked land has increased

from 1.9

million hectares to 3.6 million hectares — an 85 percent increase

between 1979 and 1984. The report states that after factoring — that

is, estimating how much of that might actually be stocked upon field

inspection — not sufficiently restocked land has increased from I

million hectares to 1.6 million hectares — a 50 percent increase in

five years.

The more a person reads this report, and understands the

importance

of our forests to our economy and to the people of British Columbia, it

makes a person weep to assess and understand the accumulated neglect

that has occurred around our forests. Focusing only on the good and

medium site land within that total, it has increased from 0 –– 8

million hectares to 1.2 million — a 42 percent increase. That's what I

was referring to, that on the good and medium sites of this province,

there was a 42 percent increase in the insufficiently stocked lands in

the last five years.

When you look at this not sufficiently restocked land by

forest

region, the most dramatic increase is in the Prince George forest

district. I hope the Prince George Citizen will cover some of my

speech, because it should know that the Forests minister, who has been

recently appointed to that position, has sat idly by over the last five

years and watched that region which he represents . the 116 percent

increase from 292,000 hectares of good and medium site land in 1979 to

632,700 hectares in 1984. What a shame! What a tragedy! That's why the

people of this province don't believe you anymore. You can set up funds

all you like. You can glossy them up. You can cover your tarpaper

shacks and have silk curtains, but the people of this province don't

believe you anymore when you say you're going to manage the forest

lands of this province.

They didn't trust you when you set up the forest and range

resource

fund with $142 million in 1980 and $120 million for 1981. The next year

it was gone. The remaining $83 million had been transferred to general

revenue to deal with the deficit. It was supposed to be a five-year,

$1.4 billion forest management program. It lasted two years. We were

robbed once; we won't be robbed again, because the people are going to

change in this province. They're going to throw out this government

that doesn't care about our forests. It doesn't care about our public

education system and the future of our young people, and it doesn't

really care about proper access to quality health care in this province.

So 14 percent of our potentially productive forest land is not

sufficiently restocked. This increase amounts to a loss of 19,000

hectares per year. Between 1979 and 1983, 80,000 hectares of forest

land, scheduled for planting, were not replanted. On those sites which

were planted, only 50 percent were planted within the recommended

period after logging. Now we have that minister in Prince George.... I

pointed out the disgrace in forest management in his forest district.

We really now have the fox in with the chickens. A person

[ Page 7501 ]

who has come from Education — his

record in the

public instruction

system of this province is very warm and fresh in the minds and hearts

of the people of this province. They know very clearly that what he did

in education....

It's almost like bringing in the exterminator when you have a

situation where our forests have been so poorly managed. Now we bring

in a minister with his record of poor advocacy in his region, and a

poor and terrible record in the education system. At least Bill Vander

Zalm, when he wreaked havoc in the public instruction system in this

province, had the good sense to quit, and I think the previous Minister

of Education should do the honourable thing and resign on the basis of

his record in education.

Let me just run through the numbers again on the

insufficiently

restocked regions. Prince George district, good and medium sites only,

1984: 632,700 hectares. Ranking second is the Nelson forest district,

with 156,800 hectares not sufficiently restocked; third, Kamloops

district, 141,000 hectares not sufficiently restocked; fourth, Prince

Rupert district, 120,300 hectares not sufficiently restocked; fifth,

Cariboo district, 100,800 hectares not sufficiently restocked;

finally, the Vancouver forest district, 77,600 hectares.

What a disgrace! What an accumulation of neglect over so many

years

and an acceleration of neglect in the last five, increasing by 42

percent on the good and medium sites from 1979 to 1984! And this

government has the audacity to come before the people of the province,

to come to this House in a budget and say they're going to mend their

ways. All of a sudden they've got a new-found commitment to forestry, a

new-found commitment to restocking our forests to intensive

silviculture and so on. What a joke! What a tragedy! What a terrible

tragedy for our future and for our children!

When they didn't restock the lands, we lost employment as a

result.

We've lost employment in the future, because as the trees aren't

growing and we have what is called the fall down effect, the trees

won't be there for the employment of our children and our

grandchildren. That's what intensive forestry is all about, Mr.

Speaker. It's not just getting top dollar today; it's making sure that

the resource is there for our children, and for their children. That's

the way it was intended in this blessed province. We're blessed with

resources; they've been neglected, and an accumulation of neglect has

resulted in a loss of employment and future possibilities for

succeeding generations. That is the tragedy.

We hear now about an Excellence in Education fund. That,

again, is

analogous to our forests. This government doesn't have a commitment to

quality education. Look at the statistics, at the numbers. You don't

have to decide that it's me, the first member for Victoria, on his feet

condemning the government. The numbers condemn the government. Next to

Newfoundland, our children have the poorest chance of going to

university of any province in Canada. What a disgrace! It's called the

participation rate. The children who enter grade one and go to

university — we have the fewest, next to Newfoundland, in all of

Canada. Does that indicate any commitment to education in the past, any

approach concerned with the career paths of our young people?

Absolutely not.

It was disclosed the other day by my colleague for

Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose) that this province has the poorest funding for textbooks in

all of Canada. Can you imagine anything more basic in the public

education system than textbooks for classroom instruction? Is there

anything in the system more fundamental than that? Here we have them

talking about funding excellence in education. Nobody believes them.

Anyone working in the educational system, whether a teacher's aide, a

parent committed to helping in the school system or the people giving

their life and skills and talents teaching in the various public school

systems from K to post-doctoral, knows that this government doesn't

have a commitment to education. They know on a day-to-day basis, and

the public knows it as well.

This government has withdrawn resources from the educational

system

for the projects that they felt would be more politically desirable.

They didn't see and don't understand that our economy is largely linked

to the quality of our education system. When a university system is

inadequately funded, as ours is here in the province of British

Columbia, we lose employment. We lose the skills and abilities of our

talented young people. They go away when they are not valued and when

they're berated and criticized and attacked by the government and

humiliated in their chosen field.

[10:30]

You know, Mr. Speaker, they leave. There aren't opportunities

here.

We've heard many times in this House, during the throne speech and the

budget debate from this side of the House, that we're losing our talent

and that the brain drain of the fifties and sixties that was so

apparent in our country and particularly in British Columbia is back.

We're losing teachers. We're losing engineers. We're losing physicians.

We're losing our skilled and trained people because this province,

through the government, sends the signals every day that they are

political targets. They're not valued citizens who are giving their all

to an educational system. They are targets. They are people who are

used to divide and conquer the electorate.

Mr. Speaker, it's not going to work anymore, because the

people of

this province are on to this government. They don't believe them

anymore. They want change. They don't believe they care about the

forests. They don't believe they care about the public education system

in this province.

We have a poor record in allowing people in rural ridings

access to

university education. It's a very poor participation rate coming from

the regions of the province. So do we have a poor participation rate

overall, compared with other provinces, even though a lot of the people

of this province don't realize that the government of British Columbia

does not put funds into the university system in this province. They

take the transfer payments from the federal government, they take the

fees from the students, they put them together, and that is the

university funding system in this province. The provincial government

does not provide funding for higher education in this province. What a

tragedy, Mr. Speaker! What a disgrace! Commitment to excellence —

baloney. There's no commitment to excellence in education in this

province and never has been under Social Credit.

Mr. Speaker, we find that the government doesn't provide the

textbooks and they don't provide adequate bursary and loan situations,

so our students have to go into debt to get a bachelor of arts or a

bachelor of science degree. Unless a person is coming from a family

where their parents have some considerable wealth, that student, if the

person has to rely on loans, can run up debts of $20,000 to get a

university degree, with no prospect of employment.

That's why we lose our young people to other provinces and

have

people going abroad where they are appreciated. I have heard of

examples of people going to Australia because

[ Page 7502 ]

their skills are appreciated. They're

going to

California because

their skills are appreciated, and they're going to Manitoba and Ontario

because their experience and their commitment to working for other

people and for building a humane society is appreciated in other areas.

Another special fund to be allocated on a political basis is

in the

health care area — can you imagine? — rather than providing the funds

into the line ministries of health so that they can be administered on

the basis of need, so that communities that require nurses, paramedical

staff, air ambulances, CAT scanners and these kinds of medical

attention and facilities.... Those funds should be apportioned on the

basis of need and so on throughout the province in a way that is fair

and not politically biased.

Here we have now funds to be allocated by the cabinet,

separate and

apart from the accountability to this House, in budget estimates, funds

that will be allocated on a political basis. The headlines in the

newspapers.... They were quick to recognize it. Pork-barrels; three

pork-barrels: one for forests, one for education, one for health. Mr.

Speaker, it's not good enough. It doesn't fly anymore. The people of

this province are on to this government.

Isn't it time for change? The people of this province are

saying it

every day. "If this government doesn't change, we're leaving." That's

what they're saying. "We're going to take our skills and ability

elsewhere, because we're not appreciated by this government, and we're

not going to spend our whole lives being attacked by the government.

We're going to give our children a chance." When you live in a province

where the resources are mismanaged this way so that we're not going to

be able to have the resource wealth in the future to provide the

educational opportunities and the job opportunities for our young

people, and when we have a government that continually underfunds

education and continually uses the people that work in the educational

system as political targets, these people are saying: "We're going to

go away." Mr. Speaker, that is a message that I want to see changed. I

want to say to our people: "There is a place here for you, and you will

be appreciated, and we'll work together to build the kind of society

with a broad, real consensus, a society for the future that we'd all be

proud of, and one that we would invite people from other regions of

this country to come and assist us to help us build the kind of society

that we envision on this side of the House."

Mr. Speaker, I've covered the forest fund and the education

fund.

It's clear, and I know very clearly from my own constituency, what the

elective surgery waiting-lists for hospitals are and the number of

extended-care beds that are required to free up acute-care beds in this

city alone. I know the situation is the same in many areas of this

province. People are waiting desperately for surgery. It may not be

life threatening. They may not be at risk today or tomorrow, but what

often happens is that the kind of illnesses people on the elective

surgery lists have may keep them from returning to work. They aggravate

an already serious condition. They aggravate their condition so that it

may be life threatening in the future.

That puts the physicians of this province in a very difficult

position. They often liken it to a kind of roulette that they're having

to play with their patients. They're having to make a subjective

evaluation of whether one person is more at risk than another. There is

only one bed, and they have to make that determination of whether that

person who needs a bypass or some kind of operation to get them back at

work is the most serious. Mr. Speaker, for them then to put health

funds into a special fund and claim somehow their commitment to quality

or excellence in delivery of health care is a mockery of this House.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want at this point to move a motion that's

standing on the order paper in my name, seconded by my colleague for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). The motion reads: "That the motion that

Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee

of Supply.... I move that that be amended by adding the following:

"But this House regrets that in the opinion of the House the Hon.

Minister of Finance, by setting up special funds which can be allocated

on a political basis rather than assuring adequate operating budgets

for ministries, is jeopardizing the management of natural resources and

the provision of quality services and undermining the employment and

income security of ordinary British Columbians."

Mr. Speaker, I so move, seconded by the member for North

Island.

In conclusion I'd just like to say that the people of this

province

— the taxpayers and the working people of this province — are fed up

with the abusive power of this government, a government that no longer

understands the difference between the political party and the rights

and obligations of a political party and the rights and obligations of

a government to its citizens. This is a government that expropriates

legitimate taxpayer functions, such as legitimate information services

to the people, legitimate public services, the delivery of health, the

delivery of education, social services of all types and the management

of our resources. This government has an obligation to all citizens of

the province to be above partisan politics, to govern for all of the

people. Mr. Speaker, this government has run its course. It has abused

power. It has taken unto itself functions of government where they have

advertised politically with tax money where that would more

appropriately be paid for by a political party and not the taxpayers of

this province.

Mr. Speaker, this government has run its course, and the

people of

this province everywhere we go are saying: "It's time for a change, and

if the change doesn't come, we're leaving." We don't want that to

happen, Mr. Speaker. We're going to bring that change about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amending motion is in

order.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if we had in

our public galleries

visitors from parts of the world other than British Columbia, they

might wonder about what kind of province it is that those of us in this

House represent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The two views of British Columbia that are presented in this

Legislature are so fundamentally different one from the other that it

would be difficult, I'm sure, for someone not familiar with the

province to understand what in fact was the truth out there.

There is some truth on both sides of the issue. There is a

British

Columbia that the Social Credit members speak about. I was in Vancouver

on the weekend and have been in Vancouver on previous occasions over

the last few months,

[ Page 7503 ]

and I see glimpses of that other

world. Coming from

Vancouver

Island, driving up and down the Island Trail, as I do every week almost

now, I'm struck when I go to Vancouver by the number of

Mercedes-Benzes, the number of Porches, the number of BMWs, the number

of Cadillacs, the incredible number of cars on those roads that are

worth $30,000 and up. There is a British Columbia out there that is

described by members of the Social Credit Party. It does exist. I see

the evidence of it when I go to Vancouver.

But I see something else as well. I see a poverty that is

deeper

than any poverty I have ever seen or witnessed in my short lifetime in

this province. It may well have been worse in the thirties, I don't

know, but it certainly has not been worse in the two or three decades

that I've been observing political life in this province. Never in the

history of this province has the saying that the rich are getting

richer and the poor are getting poorer been more true than it is today.

That's true in a way that you can visualize, you can see for yourself,

when you visit the lower mainland. Those of us who stay in our

constituencies, if we represent Vancouver Island ridings, don't see it

nearly as much. The extremes of poverty and wealth are not as clear.

They certainly are in the lower mainland. I think that partly, perhaps,

accounts for the description of two different British Columbias that

you hear about listening to debates in this Legislature.

Some of us believe that the role of politicians is to help

those in

our society who are unable to help themselves enough and who need the

assistance of the collective, the group, the society. That's why we

look at that side of our society where poverty is endemic, where people

are literally going hungry, where kids are going to school

malnourished, because our responsibility surely as politicians — or why

else are we in the business? — is to look at that side of life. The

people in Vancouver who drive the $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 cars

do not need to be represented in this Legislature in terms of

government activity or government action. But unfortunately, at this

state in our history, still a majority of the members of this House see

it as their purpose to represent that side of our society and not the

other side, which unfortunately is growing in leaps and bounds in this

province over the last few years.

[10:45]

I come from a region that has been badly dealt with by this

government. When I look at the unemployment statistics, as I do every

month when they are produced by Stats Canada, I'm appalled by the

growing disparities, not only as I've described in terms of between

groups of people but also between regions in this province. In the East

and West Kootenays the unemployment rate in February 1986 — a month ago

- was well over 20 percent. In the East Kootenays it is higher than in

Newfoundland. In the Okanagan and the southern interior, 17 percent are

unemployed. That's the second worst rate in Canada. Only Newfoundland

has a worse rate than the Okanagan and the southern interior. If you

look at the Kamloops and central interior area — 15.1 percent, fourth

worst in Canada. Then look at Vancouver Island — 16.2 percent, almost

tied with New Brunswick for the second worst unemployment rate in this

country. The Prince George and northern interior area has an

unemployment rate of 16.3 percent, virtually the same as the Vancouver

Island area and the same as New Brunswick — the second worst in the

country. Then you look at Victoria, as a part of Vancouver Island, and

you discover it too has an unemployment rate of over 16 percent.

Vancouver has an unemployment rate of 11 percent. We say to

ourselves, wow, Vancouver's doing really well. And they are, in

comparative terms in British Columbia, but they're still higher than

the national average for unemployment. Those of us who make our trips

to Vancouver occasionally are astounded and astonished by the apparent

life and activity, and what seems almost like a boom when you come from

Vancouver Island. Yet their unemployment rate is higher than the

national average.

What this budget has not done is to deal with the regional

disparities in this province. It has not devised a strategy for

unemployment in the Kootenays. It has not said: here are some things

that can be done in an economic way to assist the economy of Vancouver

Island, or any other region in this province. What is there in this

budget for Kamloops? Nothing, Mr. Speaker. The only thing you can find

in this budget is something for the Social Credit re-election campaign.

What is that? It's these so-called special funds, which I think warrant

a bit more time and attention in this debate.

Just a brief history of special funds. W.A.C. Bennett

established

special funds in order to hide a surplus, in effect — not to hide it,

but to keep the surplus in the accounts in various funds in order not

to reduce taxes. He didn't need all the money that was collected, so he

established special funds and put the money in those areas.

We as an NDP government had surpluses every year; we continued

that

practice, and did much of the same. So special funds were designed as

buckets to put surpluses in. In 1976 Evan Wolfe, as Finance minister,

decided to expropriate some of those special funds and put them into

current revenue; and we had legislation in '76 to do that. Then in 1982

we had — we thought; we, were told by the current Minister of Finance —

a balanced budget. But in that same year we had a special fund under

the Health Cost Stabilization Act — $77.8 million, if my memory is

correct — health care costs, which was to be above and beyond the

health care budget; which was to be above and beyond the budget of the

province of British Columbia; which was a way to hide a deficit. So

special funds went from hiding surpluses to, in 1982, beginning to hide

deficits.

Now that we have no surpluses to hide, and the deficits are so

big

that it's impossible to hide them, we have a new purpose for special

funds. We have three of them established so that the proper debate in

the Legislature about where these funds are to be expended, as is

common in the British parliamentary system, cannot take place.

I thought it might be useful to see how the money was spent in

1982 —

the $77.8 million in health care costs. So I checked the public

accounts for '82, and I went into '83. The money showed up as a

one-shot expenditure: $77.8 million, under health cost stabilization.

No indication of whether it went into medicare or into hospitals, or

into any other part of the health care budget — a one-shot item. I

don't know to this day, nor does anybody else, even the people in this

House who voted that money, where it was spent. That's not the

appropriate way to budget in the British parliamentary system; yet

we're doing it again, and we're doing it in even grander style with the

budget under debate today.

Mr. Speaker, any quick analysis of the budget will tell you

that the

spending items in various areas of each of those three ministries have

been reduced in order to provide additional money for a special fund.

It's quite clear. In forestry it's just a sham, because they don't

intend to spend that money in any event. But in health and in education

it's clear: they've

[ Page 7504 ]

reduced budgetary items in medicare

and in a number

of other areas

in each of those ministries and have established a special fund with

that money, so that this House will not vote where that money is to be

spent, but politicians privately, inside cabinet, will make the

decision. No wonder the Vancouver Province

headlined the budget: "Pork

Barrel." What else is it? It's pork-barrel and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just New Democrats who question this

whole

thing. I think it's important to read into the record two paragraphs of

the Times-Colonist editorial

of Friday, March 21:

"The most imaginative conjuring in the

budget concerns

the 'special' funds for forestry, health and education. The government

will put $20 million into a special forest stand management fund. Since

when is managing forest stands a temporary need? That funding belongs

in the basic forestry budget.

"And the three-year $720 million health

improvement

fund displays a curious approach. Curtis said the ministry will consult

with the health care community 'to solicit proposals and establish

priorities for the use of this fund.' Doesn't it make more sense to

establish needs, then determine which of those the province can afford

to meet?"

Of course it makes more sense. But, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't

suit the

political need to be able to buy votes, in order to try to buy the next

election. That's what these special funds are all about.

There's another purpose to these special funds, one that

hasn't

received much attention to date: they are designed to further subvert

the collective bargaining system in this province. They are designed to

say to people at the bargaining table: "The basic budgets in all of

these programs have been reduced. There's no money for anything." Yet

there is money set aside in these special funds. But that's obviously

and clearly not available at the bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, in a free collective bargaining society one does

not

bargain by saying: "Here it is. That's all there is. Take it or leave

it." That's not bargaining. The way in which the government has

conducted its set of bargainings in various areas, both directly and

indirectly, in this province in the last few months, particularly in

the last six months, is clearly, in my view, unfair bargaining and

bargaining without good faith. I think that the Labour Relations Board,

given an opportunity, would treat that quite seriously, and it may well

come up with the same conclusions.

I want to talk a little about the Compensation Stabilization

Act and

Ed Peck's organization. First of all, in my view, it was established

because the government did not feel confident enough in its own ability

to go to a bargaining table and bargain toughly, so it felt it needed

to establish a system which introduced compulsion into collective

bargaining. It didn't believe it could do it, so it set up an agency.

What were the stated objectives of this agency? I think they can be

summarized in four points: (1) to maintain public services, as stated

by the minister in 1982; (2) to protect the public interest; (3) to

encourage job security for public workers; and (4) to maintain

compensation at reasonable levels. Those were the stated aims of the

government in introducing the CSP.

Let's have a look at each of those aims. Maintaining public

services

- clearly not so. Public services have deteriorated around this

province. Thousands of jobs have been wiped out. People who want to

deal with the lands branch now can't go to Courtenay in my riding; they

have to go to Victoria. The same kind of pattern occurs all over this

province. Local government services have been eliminated; they have

been centralized and reduced. Yet a claim of the government was that we

would avoid losing public services if the CSP were passed and put into

place in British Columbia.

The CSP was designed to protect the public service — not so,

obviously. Thousands upon thousands of jobs have been lost. The morale

in public sector places of work is lower today than it has ever been in

the history of this province. That in itself reduces levels of service,

not to speak of not having enough workers to do the services that are

required. Isn't it obvious why we have everything from more poaching,

on the one hand, to more child abuse, on the other? Yet the government

said it would introduce this program and, by doing so, protect public

interests.

The third stated goal was to provide job security. Yet within

a year

of introducing the CSP a bill was put before this House which contained

a clause that public sector workers could be fired without cause.

Thousands upon thousands of public sector workers across this province

have in fact been fired or let go, despite the promise of job security

if this House would vote yes to the Compensation Stabilization Act in

Mr. Speaker, the fourth claim was that compensation would be

kept at

a reasonable level. The ILO had some interesting comments to make on

this whole subject, and I'm going to spend a couple of minutes talking

about that as well. In its reply to the charges filed with the ILO, the

government stated as follows: "As regards the allegation that the wage

controls have prevented public sector wage increases from keeping pace

with the cost of living, the government states that this is correct,

but points out that employees covered by the program have not fared

worse than private sector employees." It then points out that the

resulting private and public wage patterns have been exactly the same.

[11:00]

Interestingly, this was before last year's statistics were

prepared.

Last year private sector wage increases in British Columbia were

considerably less than public sector wage increases. It's interesting

that where free collective bargaining is in place, where the market is

allowed to determine the price of the product — in this case, work for

service — where the market is allowed to have some free rein —

supposedly the goal of people in Social Credit — where the market has

control, the wage benefits gained were less than they were under this

CSR

The problem is that when you have compulsion in a system like

the

CSP, when you have compulsion in bargaining, you end up with all kinds

of anomalies, and you end up with all kinds of tensions and anger. It's

clear from all kinds of studies that have been done recently that wage

settlements respond in the private sector as they do in the public

sector. They respond to market forces if they're free and unhindered by

compulsions such as those included in CSR When you have a CSP you get

distortions. You get some increases that are higher than the average

and some that are lower. You get all kinds of distortions in the

system, and when you get distortions in the system, you get people

receiving incomes that they feel are improper, compared to everybody

else, and they know that they've had no say whatsoever in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record what the

International

Labour Organization recommended about this particular program. A bit of

background about the ILO is

[ Page 7505 ]

important. Many years ago Canada

signed international conventions,

promising to adhere to certain standards vis-à-vis free collective

bargaining. Those conventions are not quite law, but morally they are —

it's international law. And what does this United Nations organization

say about the compensation stabilization program? Here are three of

their recommendations:

"1. ...the principle that the requirement

of prior

approval of collective agreements before they can come into force is

not in conformity with the principles of voluntary collective

bargaining laid down in convention No. 98.

"2. The compensation stabilization

program, under

which compensation plans must be submitted for review to a

government-appointed commissioner, is contrary to the principle of

voluntary collective bargaining.

"3. The committee of the ILO expresses

the hope that

the government will at an early date take appropriate steps, in light

of the principle stated above, to restore free collective bargaining

between the parties and to remove the limitations currently imposed on

this by the program."

So we have the International Labour Organization, a UN agency

based

in Geneva, in which Canada is a full and participating member, having

signed the conventions — in other words, the laws.... We have this

international agency condemning the province of British Columbia for

being in violation of the conventions that Canada has signed.

Mr. Speaker, what should we do in respect of bargaining in the

public sector? Clearly the first thing is to abide by the

recommendation of the United Nations and restore free collective

bargaining.

If there is some concern about the opportunity the government

has to

bargain properly, then let's take a leaf out of the book of the Ontario

Conservative government and establish something similar to what was

established in Ontario. What they did there in the education field was

allow full, free collective bargaining and establish what they call an

Education Relations Commission. That commission is appointed by people

representing both public sector employers and employees in the

education field, and it is chaired by a mutually acceptable

chairperson. That agency is designed to collect and provide the

economic data required to assist the parties in the collective

bargaining process, so that you don't have claim versus counter-claim

based on differing information — you can bargain based on information

that is agreed to by both parties. That takes a lot of the heat and

fire out of the whole process of collective bargaining to begin with.

That agency not only provides that kind of information to the

parties, but it also has in its ranks people who are expert in

mediation, people who can assist the parties in dispute resolution.

What have been the results in Ontario? No labour relations turmoil in

the education field and no excessive wage increases — increases which

reflect the market forces at play, and which reflect on the private

sector as well.

Why can't we do something like that in this province? Why

can't we

in British Columbia live up to our international obligations? Why can't

we in British Columbia design a system that people can participate in

and feel happy with, so that we don't have the kind of anger and

distrust and depression and lack of morale that is so widespread now in

our public sector?

That would be an admirable goal of any government. And I can

assure

you, given, an opportunity in the next months or year or so, when we

are in office, we'll have an opportunity to restore the kind of harmony

and cooperation and partnership that they talk about, but that we want

to do.

In conclusion, I've seconded this motion as moved by the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), for a number of reasons. The first

and foremost is that in my mind the budget does nothing whatsoever to

deal with the regional disparities in this province. The budget makes

no attempt to even identify the regional disparities, much less to

identify programs to deal with those disparities.

The second reason — and I've talked about it at some length —

that the budget establishes a pork-barrel like we've never had before

in British Columbia. Funds will be allocated by cabinet in secrecy to

those people it feels can best use the money; the only goal clearly in

mind is an attempt to buy the next election. For that reason alone,

honourable members should vote against the budget because Parliament

has been thrown right out of its fundamental responsibility of

determining where money is raised and how it is spent. That is the

responsibility of elected members through parliament, through a

legislature, and in this budget that right is being denied to elected

members because of the secret decision-making about where that money is

going to be spent. That is not proper in a parliamentary system.

If the government was indeed serious about attempting to

restore

British Columbia's economy, rather than being serious only about

getting re-elected, it would attempt some reconciliation with the

disaffected people in this province. It has not done that. It continues

to bring in laws, bring in budgets, and to govern in a style that

deliberately sets people apart one from the other; deliberately sets

regions apart one from the other; deliberately encourages workers to

engage in confrontational-style negotiations. No alternative is left.

When the BCGEU-B.C. government bargaining began earlier this

year, 1

watched from a distance and talked to people on both sides, and

discovered that they were operating under the principle set out in the

book Getting to Yes. I thought: "We've turned a comer in labour

relations in British Columbia; finally some bargaining that's going to

be sensible, cooperative, and as a result probably lead to an amicable

and early resolution of the issues outstanding." But the people

bargaining on behalf of the government and the people bargaining on

behalf of the government workers didn't know that the government would

bargain by edict; by saying: "Here it is. Take it or leave it."

That whole experiment, which I though was useful, has turned

out to

be an absolute waste of time, because the government itself had no

intention of bargaining in good faith. Is it any wonder that divisions

exist in our society? Is it any wonder — to come back to the point I

started with — that there are different views of what this province is

all about? We have a government that has lost touch. I'm reminded very

much of this government when I hear excerpts from Donald Johnston's

book describing Trudeau in his last term. This government, like

Trudeau's government, is out of touch with the people of this province.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I

understood there was a

list, and that the honourable thing would be done and they would

acknowledge somebody from this side of the house. I was so enamoured

with what the member for North Island was talking about that....

[ Page 7506 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you're prepared to

enter the debate on

the amendment. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Obviously I rise to

speak against the

amendment.

I'd like to talk about a number of things. Some mention was

made by

the member for North Island with respect to regional disparities. Much

ado has been made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to a

colleague on this side of the House, with respect to assisting areas

where in fact the polls within a riding move against a government

member. That just is not the case, and I'd like to refer to the member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). If she would just listen to this

particular point, then fine, I'll make a believer out of her.

The district municipality of Mackenzie, in two consecutive

elections, has not delivered the poll to me as the MLA for Prince

George North. I admit that in the first election there was quite a

spread. In the second election, in 1983, we narrowed it. But I'll tell

you why it was narrowed: because we did something for the people of

Mackenzie, a great deal. Now we look in the budget, and I see that

there's money for a new hospital in Mackenzie. Do you know, the

hospital in Mackenzie right now consists of 25 portable units which

have been in place since the district municipality of Mackenzie was

first incorporated? I remember there was a member from Fort George,

when the members opposite were in government from '72 to '75, and that

member didn't seem to deliver. Even though that poll wasn't delivered

to me, I never forgot about those people. They've got a new swimming

pool, a new library, a Kin centre. The police building, which they've

been after for years, is just about completed in construction. It

includes a courthouse. As a matter of fact, the architect's rendering

for the new hospital was delivered to me last week. Now I just want to

raise the point that here is a particular part of my riding, which poll

I did not win, and yet we delivered on all of these items. I don't

understand where the criticism is coming from.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Those things have all

come over a period

of almost seven years. As a matter of fact, I've got another surprise

for them, eventually, but it takes a while before these things all come

to pass.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Now look, I can't give

you a Smokey Bear

speech, Mr. Speaker; I haven't been in this portfolio long enough.

Reference was made by the member for Victoria — I'm not sure,

first

or second — to the editorial in the Victoria Times-Colonist .

[11:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: The only newspaper left.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I suppose that's a

matter of

opinion. I think we all receive a number of comments by the editors

throughout the province from time to time — on both sides of the House.

I don't think that we can ever remember.... The Prince George

Citizen referred to the budget as being a "reasoned

budget." I was

pleased to hear that.

And then the member for Victoria made some mention about the

forest

industry. Well, just recently, as a matter of fact during the second

week of March, a document was released by the Ministry of Forests. The

date of the press release was March 11. The document is entitled

"Prince George TSA Options Report." The byline in the newspaper, the

author of which happened to be the campaign manager for the New

Democratic Party in 1979 — and I might tell you, probably one of the

most knowledgeable reporters in the forest industry in the province....

I certainly concede that to him. He knows a great deal about it and

is a most professional reporter. But I want you to know....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: There's not enough

competition.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think there's lots of

competition.

I want you to recognize the byline. The forest report, the one

which I referred — the Prince George TSA — says as follows: "The forest

report bodes well for the industry." The author of that report happens

to be a gentleman by the name of Ken Bernsohn. I want you to know that

he has been critical of me from time to time. That's doesn't surprise

you. Being a campaign manager in 1979 for the New Democratic Party....

I'd like to quote from the article. "Despite talk of timber

shortages, harvesting won't be cut back in the Prince George TSA for at

least five years, and talks are continuing to reopen the Dease Lake

extension of B.C. Rail within four years." There's a quote in here as

well from a member of the Forest Service in the Ministry of Forests. It

says: "If the amount harvested was cut back to the sustained yield

level, it means having the timber liquidated by fire and bugs, rather

than used." One of the most reputable foresters in the province, who

operates an industrial forestry service, says as follows: "No one wants

to cut the allowable annual cut when beetles are eating up the wood. If

we cut back, we'll be cutting 250-year-old wood forever."

I'd like to make reference, if I could, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know what's

bothering the member

for Vancouver East today. I've read the Hopwood study too.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've done a lot of

reading in the first

month I've been in this portfolio.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't

understand what's

bothering the member for Vancouver East. I've been in the portfolio for

four weeks. I have read a considerable amount of material — the Hopwood

report, to which he refers, from cover to cover and dozens of other

reports as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Lots of bad news, eh?

[ Page 7507 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Let me....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, if you would

a moment. The

Chair hears the member for Vancouver East but cannot see him in his

chair. Possibly.... Will the minister continue on the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'd be delighted to

continue on the

amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm wondering, Mr.

Speaker, this

harassment that's coming from the other side — is it going to continue?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members

will have an

opportunity to stand in debate on this amending motion. In the meantime

the Minister of Forests has been recognized and has the floor. Will the

minister please continue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

make reference to

a few pages in the Prince George TSA report on options:

"Option No. 3 presents alternative

projections of the

allowable rate of harvest with the assumption that the current AAC can

be temporarily increased for the next ten years, if various strategies

can be implemented. These strategies are aimed at extending the onset

or reducing the magnitude of the projected falldown by improving balsam

problem forest type utilization; by restoring services on the B.C. Rail

Dease Lake extension; and by increasing the Forest Service reserve...to

ensure improved salvage operations associated with current pest

detection, assessment and control efforts. Collectively, all scenarios

in this option would suggest an increase in the AAC of 1.15 million

cubic metres, from 8.605 million cubic metres.... After this

period, and if the above strategies can be implemented, the current AAC

may be continued past 80 years before falling, depending on the

management alternative, to within 80 to 87 percent of the current AAC."

Now that seems to me a rather interesting comment. I mention

that

this is an option which is contained within the report. It involves not

only maintaining current silviculture practices, but some intensive

practices as well.

I'll continue with the report. I'd like to make a comment with

respect to the NSR — the non-sufficiently restocked land. I quote from

page 15 the following:

"There are approximately 7, 400 hectares

of timber

licences which, when harvested and restocked, will contribute to the

TSA timber supply. Additionally, approximately 247,900 hectares of NSR

lands are either stocked...or will become stocked" — and those that

will become stocked they've estimated to be about 154,400 hectares —

"in accordance with a current intensive silviculture program over the

next 40 years. These additions will raise the net land base to

2,634,900 hectares."

MR. WILLIAMS: You're starting to lose your

audience.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, you know, I always

do lose the

audience when we start talking about facts. Facts seem to buffalo you

every time.

A great deal of effort was put in by the ministry to prepare

the

options for the Prince George TSA. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make

reference to page 33 of the report. Very quickly, there are two cut

blocks which are within that area in the Prince George TSA, and they

are the Takla and the Sustut.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, why should it not

be for local

consumption when your own members over there plead: "We hope the

reporters from the Prince George Citizen will

listen to his comments

and put them out"? As a matter of fact, the reporters from the Citizen

have got the report and have filed their story. It's been published.

I make reference to the importance of upgrading Dease Lake for

the

Prince George TSA, because there's an available volume in that area in

excess of 39 million cubic metres.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about the risk and

profit studies? Are you

going to table those too?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Member, I'm

just wondering what

you expected me to consume in the four weeks I've had the portfolio.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister

has the floor.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The comments which are

being offered by

the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, seem somewhat out of context, and I

suppose they're out of context like the comment which the member for

Vancouver East made reference to, I am told, on a Saturday night

program — a free-time political broadcast. Well, you certainly took

licence with that freedom. If there's one thing that you don't do, you

surely.... If you're going to gild the lily, maybe you ought to be

reasonably close in the comments you make.

A question was asked in the House yesterday with respect to

log

export.

MR. REID: What did he say?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I did not hear it, but I

am told that the

member for Vancouver East made reference to the fact that 50

percent.... Is that correct? Did you say 50 percent?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He denies it. With

respect to that

operation and the operations to which the member refers, Mr. Speaker, I

am told by everybody in the industry on both sides of the House that

the Doman operation has four of the most efficient mills on the coast.

I can't deny that. I'm getting that from both sides.

With respect to the budget and the motion which was put which

I'm

speaking against, of course — I would like to make some reference to

the northern interior and what has

[ Page 7508 ]

come to pass and why the budget is

some help. There

are a number of

areas that I think are important.

First of all, it is the first time that I can ever remember

where

there were no tax increases in a budget. It seems to me that's a pretty

significant event. Perhaps a lot of the difficult work which we did

over the last three years is starting to bring returns to us. I look at

the transportation. You know, for interior members, both southern and

northern interiors, east and west in the north, transportation is the

biggest issue that we have.

What has happened with the BCR, a company which turned in a

profit

of something in the order of $42 million during the last fiscal year?

And then let me tell you about the construction that has occurred

within the Prince George area. We now have a car repair shop and a

diesel repair shop built in the city of Prince George. As a result of

the development in the northeast, what happened on the west coast in

Prince Rupert? We've got another terminal. For years and years

everybody has wanted another outlet to the Pacific, and we've got an

outlet to the Pacific. What gave rise to that outlet? Wheat, sulphur,

coal. Why is the CN double-tracking? Why is the CPR investing the money

that they do? Why did the CNR spend I don't know how much money, but

it's got to be in the millions of dollars in the Prince George area,

enlarging their facilities? It is all to do with transportation. What

speared it on? Development in the north. Transportation is important.

What about the highways? I look at the money in the budget,

and I

find we have a new bridge across the Nechako. There's now a new bridge

going across the Fraser River. Transportation is key to us all. I look

in the Health budget. There's some money involved in there so that the

rehabilitation unit and the hospital can be reopened. This is another

significant expenditure during a difficult period of time. The rehab

unit was closed down. There are some beds open, but it's not operating

to the capacity that it was built for, and that's occurring.

You know, much was mentioned about education. I look at this

and

remember when the member for Vancouver East was Minister of Education.

I looked at the PTR at the time. Do you know that during that

three-year period when budgets were controlled, the PTR only went from

17.1 to one up to 18. I to one, an average of one student per teacher?

The budget contains a fund for education, something for which

I am

extraordinarily proud and something which we made a commitment to after

we came out of a three-year period under which budgets were controlled.

A total of 25,000 people told us what we wanted. I had no fear, as a

matter of fact, when we requested a public study and public comment,

particularly on what people thought of education, no reservation

whatsoever. That report, when it was given to me, was turned over to me

and made public within minutes.

[11:30]

Do you know, 25,000 people came out and said there were a

number of

things they wanted. They wanted an internship for teachers, improved

teacher training, computers within the schools, improved curriculum and

funding for textbooks. And what has happened? The budget made provision

for it, and it's the first stage of a significant amount of money over

the next three years.

It seems to me that that budget, without any tax increases, is

exactly what the public was looking for. I know very well what

two-thirds of the teachers say privately when they speak to us. They

were all supportive of these directions so that funding would get into

the classroom and not go to enlarging the district offices, where we

get top heavy with administration.

I remember during my estimates in my previous portfolio when

the

members opposite agreed with that. Yet, you know, the strangest thing —

and I'll never forget.... One particular school board raised the

devil with us about a budget and said they weren't going to comply —

the whole bundle. Well, do you know what happened? Two days after all

of that flak came out in the press, they passed their budget. And what

was delivered to my desk two days later? They wanted to surrender

$250,000 because they didn't need the money, and they wanted to make

sure it

got back to the taxpayers. It was the honourable thing to do. But from

all of the flak that came out in the paper, you would think that the

place was going to collapse. It wasn't true.

With respect to transportation, Mr. Speaker, the budget

address made

reference to the Coquihalla. The most interesting comment of all is for

those who do travel the interior. They will find the significant

traffic on the Fraser Canyon, which was, as a matter of fact, heavily

overloaded.... Another outlet to the interior was mandatory. Benefits

will accrue to all because of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yet what do we find? We

find the Leader of

the Opposition, who turns around and makes comments with respect to a

road on Vancouver Island. He says it should be there but speaks against

the interior of the province. I wonder why. You have one tune for here,

another tune for there. I don't understand how a provincial leader can

draw that distinction. He has two tunes.

In the budget throughout, areas canvassed as far as the

interior of

British Columbia is concerned involve health, education, forestry,

justice and municipal affairs. One of the things I particularly noticed

is that the revenue-sharing fund has been enlarged, recognizing that on

average about 15 percent — as I recall — of every municipal budget

relies upon revenue-sharing. All I need to do is look at the major

sewerage facilities which have been constructed for the city of Prince

George, and I know where the help came from. The help came out of that

particular fund.

I'm advised that I'm supposed to keep my comments down to 15

or 20

minutes. I would conclude by speaking against this motion raised by the

opposition. I speak in favour of the budget and, I repeat, it covers a

host of items, all of which are advantageous to the interior of British

Columbia: transportation, health, education, municipal affairs and

tourism. To top it all off, we've got additional funds for forestry and

the biggest lift in the budget went into the Forests ministry —

something between 21 and 22 percent, which includes the money from the

federal government on the shareable basis under the five-year program.

I speak against the motion given by the first member for

Victoria

and seconded by the member for North Island.

MR. STUPICH: I've been here about 20 years

now, and I think

the thing that disturbs me most is the way in which the conduct of this

administration has affected the reputations of all of us engaged in

politics. The headlines such as we saw when this budget came out —

pork-barrel politics, political slush funds — the tragedy of those

headlines is that no one in B.C. suspected for one moment that they

weren't telling it as

[ Page 7509 ]

it is. That's the way politics

operates in B.C., and more so in the

past ten years than ever before in the history of our province; more

so, I would suspect, than in the history of almost every other Canadian

province.

Pork-barrel politics, political slush funds, is an apt

description

of the way this government conducts its affairs. Those headlines were

appropriate because no one believes that the government for one moment

intends to live up to using these funds in a proper way. No one

suspects it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. STUPICH: That is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

It is a shame

that the people of British Columbia have been conditioned to believe

that that's the way this Social Credit administration operates. They

know from experience. It's been around a long time, and they know

that's the way it operates.

I didn't intend to remind us of this right at the moment, but

recall when the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was

quoted publicly, after dealing with the NDP administration for about a

year and a half, as saying that he was promised that we were going to

do something, but he took that to be the same kind of promise he had

been getting for 20 years from the Social Credit administration. He

never thought for one moment that we believed it ourselves, that we

intended to do anything. He found out that when we said we were going

to help the agricultural industry, we lived up to our promise, and he

was totally surprised. He changed his position from opposing to

supporting what we were doing. People believed in those few short years

that there was an administration in office — whether they liked it or

not, whether they supported it or not — that lived up to its promises.

But it didn't take long for the conduct of this

administration, the

administration that is now in office, to show that promises by that

particular political party, that administration, mean nothing other

than black print on white paper, not worth the paper they're printed

on. There is so much evidence of that, Mr. Speaker.

When this administration took office there were special funds,

perpetual funds totalling $552 million. Where are those funds today,

Mr. Speaker? That cash was sitting there, cash in the bank, cash

invested in government bonds and cash invested in various

home-acquisition programs and housing programs. Three months after they

arrived — it was all sitting there March 31, 1976 — they were all wiped

out, Mr. Speaker; every single one of them gone. In some instances they

still live up to the promises. They still say: "Well, we owe this

money. When we have the cash maybe we'll do something about it." But in

the meantime, if you want any money out of all those programs....

I could go through them, but I'm looking at the clock. There

were 35

different special funds and perpetual funds, some of them established

by the previous Social Credit administration, some of them established

by the NDP administration, and every one of them linked to a particular

purpose that wasn't pork-barrel politics, Mr. Speaker. They were

serving the needs of the people of British Columbia, and as the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, they were accumulated

from surpluses that arose during the Social Credit and NDP

administrations: $553 million, serving the people of the province.

But what's the history of funds under this administration?

Much has

been said about the forest and range improvement fund, for example — a

$146.6 million expenditure. It goes on to talk about what the fund was

for: to improve the forests, to improve range. Well, Mr. Speaker, if

there's anything that gives the lie to that particular promise, the

promise that they were going to use that money to develop our forest

resource, to preserve in perpetuity the harvest so that there would be

a perpetual harvest from the forests....

Let's read one short paragraph from this year's budget. "Last

May

this government signed with Ottawa a $300 million five-year forest

resource development agreement.... A prime goal will be to restore

large areas of logged land that have not been adequately replanted." In

1980 — six years ago — they set up a special fund to catch up, to make

sure that these large areas would be replanted. Two years later they

wiped out the fund totally. That was a promise to the people of British

Columbia that they were going to use the people's money to preserve and

restore the forests — not to what they once were, but nevertheless to

restore that resource. I think people believed them that long ago. In

1980 they had been in office for only four years, and there were at

least some people in the community who believed that they were really

going to do something about that. Well, Mr. Speaker, now in the budget

that was read last week they are saying: we didn't do it. We broke our

promise. Did you really expect us to keep our promise? It served its

purpose at the time, and that's all it was for. We didn't really mean

we were going to do anything for the forests. And now we're saying over

again: "Look, we didn't do it before, but we're going to promise again.

Whether we do it or not is something left to the future."

"But we are going to promise, Mr. Speaker, because we

think people like to hear that promise. We think that today people

recognize, even more than they did in 1980, that something has to be

done to protect that forest resource. So once again we're going to

promise it, not because we think it's something that should be done" —

speaking for the Social Credit administration — "but because we think

it's something that people like to hear us talk about."

The minister quoted from a report, and I happen to have

something

here from our research department, a Prince George TSA options report:

"Increasing forestry programs are required to support present and

future harvest rates." Well, indeed they are, Mr. Speaker, and we've

been hearing that for 30 years of Social Credit administration.

Increasing forestry programs are required to support present and future

harvest rates. The extent to which these goals are achieved will be

based on government funding.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look at their record to date, do you

suspect for one moment that they really believe to make those funds

available? Do you suspect for one moment that when the Minister of

Finance goes to industry and asks for money for this forest renewal

program, or goes to municipalities to ask for money, or especially when

the Minister of Finance goes to the trade union movement and asks them

to put money in, that any of those organizations — the municipalities

or industry or the trade union movement — will have any faith in this

administration living up to its promise?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The IWA once in convention was prepared to make an offer. They

went

so far as to discuss it with people in government service, that the

pension fund might be used in part to

[ Page 7510 ]

help build up a fund that could really

do something

to restore the

forest inventory. They were discussing that. Then lo and behold, in the

same way that this government bargains with its public servants, the

Premier, for political purposes, made a premature announcement about

that program, made it obvious to the members of the IWA that if they

were going to enter into any kind of an agreement with this government

to use some of their pension money in a silvicultural program, that he

would use that money and that opportunity and those negotiations for

political purposes long before he would ever use them to plant another

tree or to cut another limb or to do any thinning.

[11:45]

To him it was an opportunity for further advantage, and that

was all

that he was concerned about. It's what he is concerned about today.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, everyone in the province believes, when the

government says: "We are now going to set up another fund for forest

renewal. We've wiped out all the previous ones. We've not done anything

positive in the past, but we're going to do it all over again; we're

going to promise once more...." Unfortunately, when people use

headlines like "slush funds" and I 'pork-barrel politics," it's

believed. No one believes that the government intends to keep its

promise, because of their record of broken promises to date. Everyone

believes they will use that money for political purposes during an

election campaign, whenever that might come.

Excellence in Education. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the

day when

we will get away from the confrontation that we've had in this

province, particularly for the last ten years. I look forward to the

day when the Minister of Education will sit down and discuss with

school trustees, teachers and others. Not this business of having

public parades around the province every once in a while, ostensibly

listening and then ignoring everything that's heard; rather, sitting

down with people who really want to do something about excellence in

education in British Columbia. There is a lot to be done. The

government's own reports indicate that much should be done.

All of the economic reports point out the importance of

quality of

education here in the province. We've seen the experience of other

jurisdictions where they have tried to save money in the short term but

have wasted money in the long term. I suppose one of the prime examples

has to be California, a state where, because of their high-tech

developments and the rate at which they are into that kind of

enterprise, quality education is even more important than in many other

states. But they decided to cut back on what was being done in

education, just as we in British Columbia have decided to cut back.

There was no rhyme or reason, no sense to the cutbacks. When the

cutbacks were first instituted, it was strictly a dollar amount. "There

are less dollars available this year for universities, colleges, high

schools, elementary schools and kindergartens, so you work it out

somehow. We'll work with you, but the bottom line is that you're going

to get less money. Quality doesn't matter. Try to do the best job you

can, but live within these dollars." Then each year, in terms of real

dollars, the amount has been progressively reduced. Quality of

education has to be suffering. Certainly the system is being

maintained, but quality must be suffering.

I don't know whether you have an opportunity, when you return

your riding, to listen to teachers. I don't mean teachers'

organizations now; I'm thinking about individuals. I know there are

individuals here and there who treat their work as teachers in much the

same way as maybe some MLAs treat their work. They aren't honest about

it. But there are others who are very conscientious. Unfortunately

they're the ones who are retiring early because they just can't take it

any longer. I know some of those individually, and I feel for them. I

wish that as an MLA I could be doing more. Certainly quality does

matter. The burnout of our best teachers matters as well. Quality

suffers when we lose experienced, good quality teachers, and we are

losing them, Mr. Speaker, in some cases to other jurisdictions.

Can anyone really believe that when the government sets up

$110

million for a quality-in-education fund those funds are going to be

distributed in the best way from the point of view of developing

quality education? The minister has since announced, I think, that some

$11 million from that fund is going to be used to put back into the

budget, where it came from in the first place.... It was taken out

of textbook purchase funds; now it's going to have to go back in there

because there isn't enough there. That reduces the fund to less than

$100 million for a start.

Where is the rest going to go? As the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr.

Segarty) pointed out, they'll reward their friends. Unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, whether that is what is going to happen or not, that's what's

believed in the community at large — that that $110 million, less

what's coming out for textbooks, in general will be put where it will

do the most political good. Whether they change their position in this

instance or not, whether the government actually does use some of that

money to provide for excellence in education, the conception in the

community is that it will be pork-barrel politics, and that hurts all

of us — you and I and all the rest. When people feel that way about

their government, that's bad for all of us, bad for government, and bad

for the future of the province.

The health fund — perhaps even more so than education, Mr.

Speaker.

We know the rate at which new hospitals and additions to hospitals were

announced in the spring of 1983. It just happened to be after the

election was called and before the vote, but the Minister of Health and

the Premier went around the province promising capital works for

hospitals in community after community. You could follow the Premier

around the province by seeing where these announcements were coming out

about building more hospitals. Of course, one of them was in Nanaimo.

That was the spring of 1983. It was a very necessary addition to the

Nanaimo Regional General Hospital that was being talked about and had

been talked about for a number of years. Because although the promise

was made several times, and although it was renewed in early 1983 when

the Premier and the Minister of Finance and a couple of other cabinet

members traveled to Nanaimo — they just happened to be there during the

election campaign, and I just happened to be still here — they talked

about it; they talked about it in 1984 and 1985 and they talked about

it in the fall of 1985, and promised it again. And, lo and behold, this

time something happened. Somehow or other it slipped through, and they

actually committed themselves to build this addition. The planning is

going on now, the tenders have been called, and.... I don't think

the contract has been awarded; it's being examined, but it's very close

now to going ahead. So in that case it did happen, long after they

started talking about it. Years after it was first promised, it's

finally going ahead.

But don't you think, Mr. Speaker, that with this $120 million

health

fund that, too, is going to be used as a pork-

[ Page 7511 ]

barrel fund, and that promises will be

made in

those geographical

areas of the province, constituencies, where it will do the most good —

calculated to do the most good, at least — when it comes to re-electing

Social Credit MLAs? But whether you think it or not, Mr. Speaker,

doesn't matter right now. The tragedy is that the people of British

Columbia believe that that's the way this fund is going to be used.

The people of British Columbia don't really believe the

budget. They

don't believe the revenue will be there. They don't believe that the

funds are going to be used in the way that the budget describes them as

being used. They know better, unfortunately, because of promises

broken. They don't trust this administration, and unfortunately there

seems to be an attitude out there that it really doesn't matter. There

seems to be an attitude in the community that as much as this

administration can't be trusted, it's really a reflection of

politicians all.

When the federal government promises to do something, it's

generally

accepted that they're going to move on that program. They might make a

mistake or might do a bad job, but it's accepted that they're going to

move. When this administration makes a promise that they're going to do

something, people's reaction is: "Ho-hum; it's another promise. It's

another promise that has been let out in an attempt to take some

political advantage, but that's all it is." As I say, that's bad for

all of us.

I wonder where went the principles of the present leader of

this

government, who traveled around the province late in 1975 and stood up

for democracy? He stood up for the rights of the Legislature and for

the rights of other elected groups — school trustees, municipalities —

and said that power should be returned to those organizations and power

should be shared with the members in the Legislature, and that there

should be not one dime spent in the province without debate.

In this present budget $230 million is set aside in special

funds

that we are told are going to be used for special purposes. But the

handling of those funds is going to be under the total control of the

cabinet — of one or two ministers, indeed; more particularly of the

Premier. Is that what he meant when he said: "Not a dime without

debate"? Vote all the money and let the Premier decide how and where

and when it's going to be spent. Is that what he meant by,"Not a dime

without debate," or has he changed? Or was he, that early in the game,

that early in his political career, making promises that he had

absolutely no intention of keeping?

People know now that he can't be trusted. People know now that

his

promises are politically inspired and serve no purpose other than

politics. The money may be spent, but it will be spent for political

reasons.

Mr. Speaker, that is a tragedy, not just because it's a Social

Credit Premier and a Social Credit administration, but also because all

of us are included, by the community, under a similar umbrella. We kept

our promises, but people are forgetting that. All they have are the

last ten years of a series of regularly broken promises by a Social

Credit administration that keeps on bringing out promises and more

promises, and more expensive promises as we get closer to an election,

in the hope that enough people will believe them this time and give

them one more chance to keep some of those promises. Not a dime without

debate? There is $230 million put into funds that the minister is going

to use at his or her discretion, with the Minister of Finance's and the

Premier's blessing.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's. kind of a sorry situation, when we

have

sunk so low in the eyes of our own citizens. And it's all on the heads

of the administration that has been in office in this province for the

last ten years. It is because of what they have done in B.C. that

people can read headlines like "Pork Barrel Politics" and "Political

Slush Funds," and accept them as being the way it is in B.C. That is a

tragedy, if for no other reason than to bring home to the

administration that they have done a disservice to all of us, to the

total community, by acting in the way they have, and to show that, even

in the Legislature, there are members who don't really believe that

this administration intends to keep its promises to show that people

should vote in favour of this amendment.

The government should be made to take notice that it is,

indeed,

time for a change. The time when governments can be elected and

re-elected time after time on such a history, such a trail, of broken

promises should be past for the people of British Columbia. It is, Mr.

Speaker, time for a change.

Mr. Davis moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1986, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada