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)

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7473 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Financial disclosure. Mr. Macdonald –– 7473

Log Exports. Mr. Passarell –– 7473

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7473

Government advertising. Mr. Hanson –– 7474

Silviculture funding. Mrs. Wallace –– 7474

Liability insurance. Mr. Cocke –– 7475

Tabling Documents –– 7475

Budget Debate

Mr. Parks –– 7475

Mr. MacWilliam –– 7477

Mr. Michael –– 7481

Ms. Sanford –– 7484

Mr. Passarell –– 7486

Mr. Cocke –– 7487

Mr. Williams –– 7488

Mr. Strachan –– 7490

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7493

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7496

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I hope most of the members were in the buildings at noon

today when the concert choir from the Columbia Christian College in

Portland, Oregon, were sharing their gift of music with us. Within that

group that is led by Mr. Richard Dalzell, the director of choral music,

are two British Columbians: Carol Mullaly from Nanaimo and Ann

Tomlinson from Salmon Arm.

I would also like to welcome

Colin Geiger from Griffin, Saskatchewan, another Canadian. But would

all members welcome all members of that beautiful choir that came to

share their talent with us today and wish them a happy trip as they

travel from here to Alberta.

MR. REE: In the gallery

today I have two dear old friends — I shouldn't say "old," because they

are very young at heart, but they are old-time friends of mine — I'd

like this House to welcome. Both of them have been over for an amputee

bonspiel in Victoria over the weekend, so would the House please

welcome Al and Torch Russell.

MS. BROWN: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the House would join me on behalf of the member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) in welcoming the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) back to the House.

understand, Mr. Speaker, that her absence caused him such anguish that

he raised it on the floor of the House on Friday, and I wanted to

assure him that she's much better and at any moment will be operating

at full bore again.

Oral Questions

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General appointed Mr. Leonard Doust, QC, to

investigate the affairs of the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) under the disclosure act. Can the Attorney-General advise when

or if such a report will be received by him?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I can. It would be expected some time this week, hopefully, but I can't give any assurance.

know that the member opposite is an admirer of Mr. Leonard Doust,

because I read his remarks in the throne debate, and I also remember

that he hired him a number of times when he was Attorney-General, so he

must have thought that he was a very objective, well-thought-of lawyer.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I got a little more than I asked for there, but I can't

Did he get $200,000 a year when we were government? Did I appoint him

to be an independent arbiter of one of my colleagues? If I did I ought

to resign, but I have resigned — I'm out and I can't.

All I'm asking....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am envious of the hon. lawyer.

Would

the Attorney-General perhaps consider giving him another assignment to

look at the disclosure form of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Richmond), who declared that his assets were in a blind trust with Mair

Janowsky Blair, which is obviously a breach of the act? Will the

Attorney-General appoint him for that purpose and have a second report?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I'll take that question under advisement.

MR. MACDONALD: There's one short supplementary: will the reports — one or two — of Mr. Doust be made public, so the public can read them?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Certainly the substance of the recommendation will. As the member

knows, you do not make public reports on police investigations; you

never do. When you're sitting opposite it's always a tempting sort of

sunshine thing to say that all these things should be made public, but

you don't make public reports dealing with justice matters. But the

substance of Mr. Doust's recommendations most certainly will be public.

LOG EXPORTS

MR. PASSARELL:

A question to the Minister of Forests. This past weekend it was

reported that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

stated that 50 percent of all logs cut in British Columbia were

exported. My constituents were very concerned about it this weekend.

Are these figures correct?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In

response to the member for Atlin's concern, I think his constituents

ought to be concerned, as well as everybody else in British Columbia.

If the opposition will give me an opportunity, perhaps we could shed

some light on the questions from the member for Vancouver East.

understanding is that roughly 4 percent of the provincial annual cut in

cubic metres has been exported, and most of this has been handled

through the surplus criteria on the Vancouver log market. With respect

to the coastal cut, I believe something in the order of 27 million

cubic metres was harvested during 1985, and something in the order of

2.6 million cubic metres was exported, or somewhere in the order of

about 9 percent.

[2:15]

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM:

In the absence of the Minister of Tourism, I shall ask his alternate

regarding Expo's specialized periods where the nuts and bolts of world

transportation and communication technology were supposed to be aired.

Apparently this is now being brushed aside. Expo officials have shelved

the promotional events which were promised to the international

exhibitors. Has the minister decided to review this decision and

properly fund this program, which, to remind all members, was sold to

the nations as the prime reason for those international participants in

the fair?

[ Page 7474 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), I'm going to take that question as notice.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Supplementary.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: New question. People keep handing me papers.

Ted

Allan said the participating nations feel that the rug has literally

been pulled out from under them, and that the decision will seriously

harm the fair's potential to develop international trade markets. Does

the minister not recognize that failing to honour such international

commitments could damage British Columbia's reputation as an

international trading partner?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Much as I'd be delighted to answer that question — and am even tempted,

Mr. Speaker — I'm going to take that question as notice for the

Minister of Tourism.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. Would the

minister confirm that the political advertising campaign being carried

out around the budget is paid for by tax dollars?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know of any political advertising being carried out by the province.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Informational.

MR. HANSON:

So the answer to the first question is yes the taxpayers are paying.

The taxpayers and the working people of this province are paying the

bills and would like to know exactly how much this campaign is costing

them. They're very concerned to know the answer on costs, because they

know these ads are not true. Would you give us the costs, please.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, would the minister provide this House with the costs of

the saturation advertising campaign surrounding the budget that is

bombarding the airwaves in this province? What is the cost? This House

has a right to know.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I believe the question is surrounding any informational

advertising that the Ministry of Finance may have regarding where

information for the budget tabled last week could be obtained. I would

be very pleased to get that answer for the member.

MR. HANSON:

A supplementary. This minister has the responsibility for administering

the Government Information Services of this province. Is the cost of

the campaign coming out of one of the funds within her ministry?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, Government Information Services comes under my

jurisdiction as Provincial Secretary and minister responsible for

government services.

MR. HANSON: One final

supplementary. What particular account within the GIS budget...? What

is the cost and what is the account that the program, the political

saturation campaign, is being paid for under?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have already in an earlier question undertaken to bring that answer back for the member.

SILVICULTURE FUNDING

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. The

silviculture initiative proposed in the budget is temporary in nature,

and it's dependent upon outside funding as well. It's totally

inadequate for the task at hand. Will the Minister of Forests advise

why he is unable to present a permanent and properly financed

initiative for the care and management of our forests?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the bill which was introduced last

Thursday, Bill 7, Forest Stand Management Fund Act, is now before the

House. I thought that a question asked with respect to that particular

piece of legislation would be out of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

The point made is a valid one, hon. member, although on occasions we

have allowed some flexibility in question period. The member continues.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, let's try this one. Why is the minister not providing in

his budget sufficient funds to ensure that our silviculture program is

a long and continuing one, to provide meaningful jobs for people in the

forest industry?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, if

the member would care to look at the budget, you'll notice that the

lift in the Ministry of Forests budget was something in the order of 21

percent. You'll also note that incidental to that particular budget

amount is an amount under the new legislation which the Minister of

Finance announced last Thursday, $20 million, being the start of a

particular fund which is to remain untouchable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, anybody else who is prepared to make a

contribution to that fund.... And there are others. We touch that fund

at our peril. That fund will remain inviolate, and it's going to be for

intensive silviculture, for stand-tending in some of the areas where I

see these members are elected from. We've got lots of places for it.

I'll tell you, it'll remain untouchable.

MRS. WALLACE:

I wonder if I could ask the minister if this fund that he is setting up

is as untouchable as the one that was set up by his predecessor.

[ Page

7475 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The fund which has been set up makes reference not

only to a government contribution but also to contributions from industry, municipalities,

those involved in the forest sector, the trade unions and others. It seems to

me that with the funds which were advanced by those people, whether by levy

or contribution or voluntarily, no government would ever turn around and take

the funds from others set up for a particular intensive silviculture fund, Madam

Member, and pull it out. And anybody who touches that does so at their own peril

for breaking the faith with the people who have been asked to contribute.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, this is the government that tried to do it with the fund that is

paid for by the hunting and fishing community. They tried to recoup the

Farmer's Fund, and now they tell us to believe they won't recoup this

one. Is that minister going to do to forestry what he did to education

in this province?

LIABILITY INSURANCE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was so waiting for that answer that I was just a little slow in getting up. I apologize.

I'd

like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs. There's a crisis in our province regarding the increased cost

of liability insurance. Individuals, small businesses, municipalities,

professionals and groups are under severe financial stress. Can the

minister explain the complete failure of his ministry to take any

action whatsoever in this matter?

HON. MR. VEITCH:

As a matter of fact, about two or three weeks ago we spent three days

with Barbara McDougall and ministers from across Canada dealing with

that very problem. The problem of liability insurance is not peculiar

to British Columbia. It's a problem throughout North America. It was

brought about in large measure by the problem in Bhopal, India, and it

is one of the items that we are dealing with. I hope to be back to the

House shortly with some help in this particular area.

might tell you that as far as liability insurance is concerned British

Columbia is in a lot better position than some other provinces in

Canada. As a matter of fact, the market is starting to open up. We are

keeping a watch on it on a daily basis, and the ministry is actively

working together with other members of the government to try to bring

about solutions.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled, from the

Superannuation Commission, annual reports for both the Pension (Public

Service) Act and the Pension (College) Act.

Hon. Mr. Curtis

tabled a statement of unclaimed moneys to March 31, 1985, as required

under

section I of the Unclaimed Money Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to introduce a former constituent and an old

friend who is in the gallery, Mrs. Beryl Young.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on the budget, Mr. Speaker.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. PARKS:

As a member of the government side, it is my privilege to rise in the

House this afternoon and speak in support of the 1986 budget. More than

my privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly a pleasure to be able to

rise and speak in support of a budget that addresses the issues before

our province at this time and that puts forth solutions. I think the

very quote on the inside cover of this budget sums it up extremely

well, and it is as follows: "At a time when other governments in Canada

are forced to retrench by cutting programs and increasing taxes, our

vital programs are secure and our taxes are being reduced."

don't know of anyone who understands the rudiments of taxation and

fiscal planning who shouldn't be supporting that, yet time and again,

in the few short days since that budget was introduced, we have seen

members of the opposition speaking out against it. Probably the most

illuminating comment that I have noticed in the media is one attributed

to the Leader of the Opposition, where he notes that "the budget cuts

corporate income tax, yet projects an increase in corporate income tax

this year over last year of $90 million. There is absolutely no way the

figures in this budget can be justified in terms of reality."

What

that shows is that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand

fiscal policy, does not understand basic economics. Of course this

budget reduces income taxes and corporate taxes, for one simple reason:

to encourage investment. It is investments that create jobs, and that's

what this province is undoubtedly in need of jobs, many jobs. And it is

investment by the private sector, not spending on public works, that is

going to continue to produce jobs, get our economy turned around,

diversify our industry and make this province once again the number one

economic performer in Canada.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Last

year's budget was a start of building for this economic renewal, There

were a number of major tax reductions, and we have already begun to see

the effects of those. We in effect have got our financial house in

order, when the deficits of other governments are still galloping out

of control. A year ago we launched a set of initiatives — major tax reliefs — worth

almost a billion dollars over this year and the next two years. Why was

that done? To relieve the burden on business, the engine of our

economy, and it's beginning to work: tax incentives to stimulate new

job-creating investment, industrial development programs to aid new and

expanding business, investments in our resource base, and major

construction projects to provide jobs now and in the future.

we all can remember, in the months after budget 1985, this government

added more: the provincial-municipal partnership program, electricity

discounts, the critical industries process. Even the opposition, even

the Leader of the Opposition, is on record congratulating the critical

industries commissioner in his efforts to save at least 1,500 jobs in

the short time that he has been in office. The public sector purchasing

[ Page 7476 ]

policy

is another one of those initiatives we have brought to bear in this

province; the equity investment plan, venture capital corporations.

Quite frankly, there were many other building blocks for this economic

revival. Budget 1986 builds on that solid foundation.

This

budget makes a major new investment in people because we need skilled,

educated and healthy British Columbians. Budget 1986 shows very clearly

that we are doing the right thing, that we are moving in the right

direction. British Columbia is heading for a new era of growth and

prosperity. We are undoubtedly, in my opinion, doing the correct thing.

Many say 1985 was a tough year. However, 1985 was in fact the best year

for the provincial economy since 1981. Increased consumer spending and

higher exports brought estimated real growth of about 3 percent.

Although commodity prices were lower, volume was up, with the total

value of commodity exports appearing to increase slightly. While some

major commodities — wood pulp, natural gas and coal — experienced

export price declines, others, like copper, lumber and newsprint, went

up. Employment, that most significant concern to all thoughtful British

Columbians, showed a steady upwards trend. Though moderate compared to

the 1960s and 1970s, the growth of 26,000 jobs in our province last

year was the most significant since 1981. Even more impressive was the

last month of StatsCan statistics; job creation in February alone was

50,000 more than in the month the year previous. That clearly is good

news, but I would suggest that it just bodes well for what's coming in

the months ahead.

[2:30]

The

benefits of this three-year tax reform program that we began last year

will provide increasing economic stimulus this year. I think that's the

main thrust of the budget: long-term planning, diversification of our

industries and increased incentives to business. We can expect a growth

rate in GNP for this province of about 4 percent this year, and with

the employment incentives as they are, it should further increase by an

average of about 40,000 to 45,000 jobs this year. If we keep in mind

that in February we saw 50,000 new jobs, with this conservative

projection of approximately 40,000 jobs for 1986, some of the programs

that the opposition put forth as being realistic programs of ploughing

in hundreds of millions of dollars to create a mere 150,000 new jobs

over three years, then the basis for that short-term investment for

short-term jobs — no long-term investment and no long-term jobs — has

to be seriously questioned, Mr. Speaker. If in fact we are able to

realize that figure of 40,000 jobs this year it is expected that

unemployment in this province will continue to decline from the 14

percent range to well under 13 percent.

We must keep in

mind that notwithstanding the structure that this budget establishes

and encourages, there are clearly no shortcuts either by handouts or

make-work projects. The only way to create real jobs is through

investment. Those investments must take place in plants and equipment,

and most importantly in people by offering them the skills and training

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

Although

the opposition are renowned for putting forth illogical and unfounded

statements, it's interesting that at this time when we're just

embarking on the debate on the budget, there is but one member of the

opposition in the House. One shouldn't speak to the converted, and one

should thank that one member for attending, but I wonder how serious

the opposition is, Mr. Speaker, when they don't choose to take

part in

the debate and attend in the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hear they've got a split in their caucus.

MR. PARKS: They have a number of splits in their caucus, hon. minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: When you talk about something reasonable, we'll listen.

MR. PARKS:

My colleague, the only opposition member in the House, suggests that

we're not discussing something serious. We're only discussing the

economic future of this province; we're only talking about creating

jobs for the multitude of unemployed youth in this province, And this

is not serious, Mr. Speaker?

The structure of this budget

is the type of budget that's going to create economic growth not just

in 1986 but surely in the years to come. I'm sure the opposition

member, the sole opposition member present, will just have to ask on

behalf of his colleagues — and I'm sure some of them would ask if they were here — what

are the reasons I'm prepared to stand up today and say there is going

to be a significant increase in economic growth in this province.

There

are a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker. Probably the most important one —

in my opinion surely the most important one — is

our government's actions over the past three years to strengthen the

long-term competitiveness of our producers. However, there are other

significant reasons, too. There has been growth in the economies of the

United States, Japan and western Europe, and these increased economic

situations will increase the demand for our products — for Canadian

products. The decline in the Canadian dollar will surely help our

international exports remain competitive. Key indicators — those in

retail sales, housing starts and manufacturing shipments — show

established upward trends.

For

those of us who are very proud of Expo from the point of view of

showing British Columbia, there is a very important economic reason to

be proud of Expo 86. With its millions, and not just the 13.75 that

we're now almost guaranteed of having attend our world exposition, but

probably with the 15, 16 or maybe even 17 millions of visitors

attending in British Columbia.... They will provide a major economic

stimulus and firmly establish British Columbia as a prime tourism and

investment location.

We have the opportunity of bringing

all those people not just to the lower mainland of British Columbia,

Mr. Speaker, because I understand studies indicate that if someone is

going to come to Expo for a two-week vacation they're probably only

going to spend three or four days on the Expo site, and the balance of

their stay in the Pacific northwest will be either going to or from

their destinations, in all likelihood spending something like seven to

ten days throughout the balance of British Columbia. That's the

opportunity British Columbians are going to have this summer. They're

going to have the opportunity of selling British Columbia. They're

going to have the opportunity of displaying the natural beauty, and

they're going to have the opportunity of showing that they are in fact

super hosts. And when those visitors return home they may not come back

next year, but if we are in fact good hosts,

[ Page 7477 ]

then they're going to refer relatives or friends or business associates.

know that we already see the manifestations of a number of Expo

legacies, and one clearly is going to be the Canada Place Pacific Trade

Centre. Already a number of conventions are planned for that facility.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What did the member for Vancouver Centre say about Expo?

MR. PARKS:

Well it's interesting. The Hon. Minister of Forests inquires what the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has recently.... I guess

it was just this past weekend — yesterday in fact.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Address the Chair.

MR. PARKS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Vancouver Centre.

MR. PARKS: Sorry. Vancouver Centre.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Address the Chair.

MR. PARKS: Pardon me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. PARKS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

When the second member for Vancouver Centre was being nominated yesterday....

AN HON. MEMBER: First member.

MR. PARKS: Oh, are we going to promote him? Is he the first member?

MR. REID: No, he won't even be that.

MR. PARKS:

Well, he will become the first member by accession, I guess. In any

event, when he was attending at his nomination meeting yesterday, and

being joined on the slate by my dear friend Mikey, the first member for

Vancouver Centre was bold enough to acknowledge — honest enough to acknowledge, I guess — that

sometimes you lose political issues and political battles. He was

referring to the Expo issue. In front of his paltry hundred or so

members that turned out for what was supposed to be a spine-tingling

and exciting nomination meeting, in front of all of those supporters

that the hon. member has, he acceded that notwithstanding the efforts

of Mayor Harcourt and the NDP caucus of the day back in 1979, Expo is

going to be not only a reality but a phenomenal success for this

province. That member acknowledged publicly yesterday afternoon that

his caucus, his government, his way of non-development,

non-progress.... They lost that political battle, and thank goodness

they lost that battle.

In my opinion, our government is

meeting its responsibility, and that's to fully develop British

Columbia's human potential. I earlier alluded to the fact that we do

have, in my opinion, a horrendous number of unemployed youth in this

province. This budget contains initiatives to address that very

important provisions. Allow me to list them.

There is a $10

million provision for the Challenge 86 program. That's a

federal-provincial program that provides work experience during the

spring and summer for students and youth. Most British Columbians

understand that that is the sole program: well, there are many more.

There is further funding to be provided for the B.C. students' venture

loan program to help young British Columbians develop entrepreneurial

skills. Again, that's a program that was commenced last year. I think

on all quarters it is acceded that it was a tremendous success.

This

government has made a further allocation of $600,000 to the Ministry of

Labour for operation of the Youth Advisory Council and the youth grants

program — again, a very concerted effort by this government to ensure

that the moneys that we are setting aside are going to be well spent to

provide jobs for our youth.

A new allocation of $10 million

has been made to fund new programs specifically designed to help

unemployed British Columbians gain entry into the labour market and

meet the changing needs of employers.

Finally, there is a

further $5 million to fund programs aimed at students, recent graduates

and youth whose lack of work experience stands as a barrier to their

permanent employment.

Mr. Speaker, this budget has set the

framework. We are experiencing the benefits of it already. I am sure

that anyone who takes the time to analyze the economic policies that

are set out therein will agree with this government that it'll be a

sound budget and will prove to be a very effective budget. It will be

my pleasure to vote in support of this budget.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

With all due respect to my colleague from down the row there, I have

some points in disagreement with him. I do not stand up in favour of

the present budget, because

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Ah, yes, I'll get to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. MacWILLIAM:

Because it's a rubber-money budget. It's painless. And yet it's

ineffectual. I think this budget demonstrates the continued failure of

this government to regain control of this economy, to really get its

hands on the economic structure and bring things back to order. The

budget is another example of this government's failure to do any

serious planning. I know that members on the other side see things a

little differently, but I hope to be able to present, through some

objective analysis of some of the economic indicators, just what this

budget fails to do.

[2:45]

I almost get the feeling that it was put together over a Sunday coffee — or

maybe an Alka-Seltzer, I don't know. A last ditch attempt to piece

together a reason to call this House back into session, when the

Premier decided he didn't have anything to go on to call the spring

election. Because, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the details of this

budget, albeit it's full of all the rhetoric and all the buzzwords and

all the positive images, there's really nothing there. There's no

evidence of any economic planning. There's no blueprint for any new

economic initiatives. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the budget doesn't

establish any long-range objectives. It seems

[ Page 7478 ]

ju st

to look ahead to the next few months, or at the most the next year.

There are no long-range objectives established in this budget. I get

the feeling it puts us in a kind of holding pattern until the Premier

can select and isolate his next victim for confrontation, which might

give him something to run on in the future. There's certainly no

indication of any long range planning.

A continuation of

the policies that have gotten this province into trouble in the first

place, the policies of a government that has failed in its attempted

program of recovery.... It's not happening, Mr. Speaker.

Like

this government, this budget can't be trusted. It attempts to mislead

ordinary people throughout British Columbia about what's really going

on in the economy. It attempts to fool people into believing that the

government has some magic formula for renewal. Like this government,

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a failure.

It's a failure

because the objectives that it establishes are impossible to attain.

Let me give you a reason. Firstly, it's based upon economic assumptions

that have already been demonstrated to be false. It assumes capital

spending will increase 8 percent in 1986, and yet a recent StatsCan

survey of investment intentions, just done not even two weeks ago,

shows that in British Columbia capital investment is estimated to

decline in the next fiscal year between 6 and 7 percent.

you add those numbers together, that's a 14 to 15 percent discrepancy

between what the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is saying and

what Statistics Canada is saying. Clearly, there's something out of

whack here; there's something far out of whack.

The budget

also forecasts major increases in tax revenues that can't be supported

by the performance in the industrial sector. It makes major tax

concessions to the government's corporate friends, yet at the same time

it's forecasting incredible increases in revenues from these same

sources. If you're going to make tax concessions.... I agree that they

may stimulate economic activity slightly, but I don't think it'll do it

enough to indicate the incredible increases that have been projected.

On top of this, Mr. Speaker, the budget attempts, at the same time, to

reduce the deficit. You can't do all of them in the same day. That's

why it's a rubber-money budget. It's NSF, as plain as that.

don't think the government ever intends to have to defend this budget

at the end of the fiscal year. I don't think it ever intends to have to

demonstrate its performance at the end of the year. The budget

estimates a deficit of $875 million, and I think that budget deficit

estimate is unreasonably and unrealistically low. It's another deficit

budget from a government that seems to be devoid of any real

initiative, another deficit that's going to be added on top of an

accumulated debt load in the province of British Columbia that now

teeters at almost $20 billion.

took us 104 years of

consecutive governments in British Columbia to develop an accumulated

debt load, a historic debt of about $4.2 billion. In the last ten

years, this government, which has prided itself on its management, has

managed to more than quadruple that debt load. Some management, Mr.

Speaker. They quadrupled the debt from $4 billion to almost — they

almost quintupled it — almost $20 billion. If that's management, we've

got some real problems in this province.

If this budget was any good, it would be able to sell itself, but the government

doesn't trust this budget to sell itself, and I want to tell you why. They've

launched a desperate campaign out there in the media to try to market the budget

for them.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

People throughout British Columbia, especially in the member's

constituency in Surrey, are looking for something to hang onto, some

reason to put their faith back into this government. This budget can't

sell itself. It can't do the job, and that's why they're having to go

out on a propaganda blitz to try to sell the budget and confuse people

with misleading facts.

I'd like to know how much that

propaganda blitz is costing this government; I'd like to know how much

it's costing the people of British Columbia to tell them something that

is blatantly untrue. Thousands of ads went out all over British

Columbia the same day this budget came down, all at taxpayers' expense,

all trying to sell the public their own wooden nickels.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, it demonstrates the fact that this government is refusing....

It's afraid to rely on the professionalism and the unbiased rigour of

our good friends in the media up there. You're afraid to rely on them

to do your job for you.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Do you rely on them?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Of course I do. I rely on them every day.

get back to the point, Mr. Speaker, the budget demonstrates a continued

failure of this government to deal with the real world out there, to

deal with reality, to deal with what ordinary British Columbians, day

in and day out, are having to face in this province. It represents the

inability of this government and this Premier to deal from a straight

deck.

It talks about his plan. What plan? I don't see any

economic plan in this budget. There is nothing there. There is no

long-range planning. It talks about a growing consensus, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing growing out there is disenchantment and resentment.

There is no consensus out there.

This budget is a fantasy.

It reflects the Premier's portrait of British Columbia as an

Alice-in-Wonderland fairy-tale. It fails to address the concerns of the

real world; it fails to address the concerns of ordinary British

Columbians. It's a world of high unemployment. It's a world of soup

lines. It's a world of uncertainty. It's a world of broken dreams. It's

a world of lost opportunity. I am not being alarmist when I say that.

All you have to do is go out there — into the hinterland, into the interior regions of this province — and

see what has been the effect of the last ten years of this government

on this province. Go out there and look around at the shops that have

closed down, at the people who are unemployed, and you'll see what the

real world is like.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not here

today. But I want to tell him very straight that there are families out

there, throughout British Columbia, that desperately need his help.

They're living at half the level of poverty. There are men and women in

this proud province who haven't worked in months and even years. There

are young people who are entering their adulthood never having known

the value of a day's work.

[ Page 7479 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Doom and gloom.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Look around you, my friend. An entire generation of our youth are saying — they've

said it to me, and I know young people because I dealt with them on a

daily basis before I stood here in the House: "What the hell? Nobody

gives a damn anymore." That's what they're saying. They're

disfranchised and they're angry.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that what they say to you? Is that how much respect they have for you?

MR. HANSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey is continually

interrupting the member for Okanagan North, and she is not in her own

seat. Would she please read the rules of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

One moment, please. The member is interrupting and the Chair will

censure that. However, according to my seating list, the member is

sitting in the appropriate seat.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I don't see anything in the

rules that says you may interrupt the speaker if you are in your own

chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, isn't that interesting?

MR. MacWILLIAM:

Mr. Speaker, there's a world out there where people are quietly giving

up in despair. You know, you reach a point at which you've exhausted

your outrage. You become numb to what is going on around you. Many

people in British Columbia have reached that point. They have become

totally numb to the hypocrisy of this government, and they've lost

faith. I want to emphasize that they've lost faith, and they've lost

any semblance of respect for this present administration.

want to tell the Premier that people all over British Columbia are

giving up on him because he doesn't care. They're giving up on this

government because it has broken their faith. The program of recovery

through restraint was nothing more than a vicious attack on ordinary

British Columbians. It insulted people's pride, and it destroyed their

trust in the government. It was the wrong medicine at the wrong time.

It took an ailing economy and drove it to its knees. Working people

throughout B.C. no longer believe this Premier; they no longer trust

his government.

We heard the former speaker boast about job

creation in the last year. Yes, we have created a few jobs. It has

grown about 2.2 percent, or 26,000 jobs in the last year. I think the

member said 50,000 jobs in the last month. He 's a little out of whack

there. But every one of those jobs was in the greater Vancouver area.

There wasn't a single job created in the interior regions of this

province. Statistics Canada has indicated that job growth in the

interior of this province was nil, zero, zilch. It all went to the

greater Vancouver area.

This budget does nothing for the

interior. Let me give you some facts for the central and southern

interior, for the Okanagan-Boundary area, which goes from Revelstoke

all the way down to the border. In 1981 unemployment within that area

was 7.7 percent. In 1983, after the restraint program had been

introduced, it doubled to 14.2 percent. In February of this year that

unemployment level sat at 17.7 percent. You call that job creation? You

should be ashamed of yourselves.

Unemployment in the

Kamloops area. In the January paper in Kamloops: "Unemployment at 25

Percent." Job creation? Come on, get serious.

Construction

occupations are the largest groups affected in unemployment. In the

Vernon area 18.7 percent are unemployed in the construction workforce;

in Revelstoke, 32 percent; in Salmon Arm 17 percent. And this

government calls itself the friend of the construction workforce.

Carpenters' local in the interior, 93 percent of them unemployed.

Let

me give you some facts on income assistance. The government in the

recent budget announced an $11 million reduction in the expenditures

for GAIN recipients, for welfare recipients. It said: "This reflects

the success of our economic renewal program in creating jobs." Can you

believe it? We show dramatic increases in welfare recipients throughout

the interior. If you don't believe me, let me give you some facts.

Kamloops, 1982, 9,292 recipients; 1984, 15,828; a 70 percent increase

in two years. Mr. Speaker, it's still growing. The Okanagan region,

1982, number of GAIN recipients. 10,686: 1984, 17,191; a 61 percent

increase in welfare recipients in two years. You call that economic

renewal? Shameful!

[3:00]

British Columbia in the last four years, total bankruptcies are up 127

percent; business bankruptcies are up 124 percent. Those are your own

statistics from your own ministry. The record of business bankruptcies

between '81 and '84 — let me give you the percentage increase: North

Okanagan up 214 percent; central Okanagan up 230 percent; Columbia

Shuswap, 173 percent increase; Okanagan-Similkameen, 143 percent;

Thompson-Nicola, which includes Kamloops, a 256 percent spiral in

business bankruptcies in this time. Total bankruptcies — let's look at

figures for '84. Central Okanagan, a continued increase since '84 of

another 14 percent; Columbia-Shuswap, 47 percent further increase;

Okanagan-Similkameen, 28 percent increase; Kamloops, another 25 percent.

Mr.

Speaker, we can play with figures, but they speak for themselves. This

government's program of economic renewal has been an unmitigated

failure; it has not worked. It has not addressed the concerns of the

people of the interior of this province. Yes, there have been jobs

created in the Vancouver area, largely as a result of Expo; and I give

Expo credit for that. But it hasn't done a dam thing for the central

portion of this province.

Let me go over some general

concerns, Mr. Speaker. Forestry is a very important concern in the

interior of this province. I know the new Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) will want to listen with great interest to the facts I have

to relay. In the Okanagan, in the central interior, forestry is our

most important resource. The Okanagan timber supply area supplies

13,000 person-years of employment: $82.4 million in an annual payroll;

$82.5 million in contract payments; 16,000 jobs; almost $70 million in

taxes. It's big business up there. But it's in bad shape.

The

Shuswap-Okanagan Forestry Association has been appealing for a number

of years for more government commitment to proper forest management.

What are its needs in the Shuswap-Okanagan area? It needs at least

$16.5 million per year on intensive reforestation and silviculture.

What are the current expenditures? In 1984, $5.4 million; not even a

third of that required to just maintain the health of the industry, so

that they don't run out of usable timber down the road.

[ Page 7480 ]

The

Okanagan timber supply area, I should point out, goes from Revelstoke

all the way down to the border; and enclosed within it is the Kamloops

forest region. The Kamloops forest region has experienced a 29 percent

increase in non-sufficiently restocked land. It's bare land; it's been

logged and hasn't been replanted. A 32 percent increase in good and

medium sites that have not been replanted.

The ERD

agreement has been heralded by the members across the way as their

commitment to reforestation. Remember the figure that I said earlier:

we need almost $16.5 million each year for reforestation. What does

ERDA give to the Shuswap-Okanagan area? Just $1.2 million per year. I

think it's a little short, a little weak. The money doesn't even begin

to address the needs for intensive reforestation.

The

proposed establishment of the forest stand management, as was mentioned

in the budget, is a good idea. I don't knock it at all. There's not

enough in it; $20 million won't go very far. You're asking the

municipalities and private enterprise to chip in. I think they might be

a little worried about chipping in to a program that could be

cancelled, and the money confiscated and dumped back into revenues. You

say it can't happen? I say it can, because you did exactly that with

the forest and range resources fund back in 1982. You took $84 million

in forest renewal funds, gutted the forest and range resource fund,

left it with nothing in there, and dumped that money into consolidated

revenue. Now, lo and behold, you're giving us a whole $20 million back.

Well, thank you very much, but it doesn't quite do the job. It's the

old shell game again.

This

government has failed to

demonstrate a real commitment to intensive reforestation. The $300

million ERDA forestry agreement is insufficient. The experts estimate

that we're going to need to spend about $300 million annually — not

over five years, but annually — to address reforestation adequately,

and we haven't done it.

Let

me turn quickly to education. Throughout the interior almost every

school is unable to meet last year's service levels with the present

fiscal framework. Now that means one of two things: either they're

going to have to reduce service, lay off staff, or they're going to

have to hike property taxes. They have no choice; you haven't given

them any choice. Throughout British Columbia we need a total of $65

million to maintain present levels of service. That's nothing to do

with salaries; that's just buying books and necessary materials.

With

few exceptions, most districts that we've surveyed are going to suffer

huge funding shortfalls, and the boards that I've talked to are angry

that this government is playing politics with education. They're angry

that you've forced the local boards into doing your dirty work for you.

There's a universal belief out there in every board that we talk to

that the Excellence in Education fund is nothing more than a joke. The

$110 million put into Excellence in Education is simply that: it's a

political slush fund and it's wide open to abuse. The boards have to

come, literally, cap in hand to this government to ask for funding, to

ask for favours, and you think that's not open to favouritism? Boy,

what an abuse of this government's authority.

Government

has to stop using education as a political football. We have to get

education out of the political arena and leave it to the local boards

to make those decisions. You guys have screwed that one up entirely.

The $110 million should go into providing the necessary, basic level of

funding, not into a political slush fund. It's continued interference

with the budget process.

this government was to take

excellence in education seriously, it would trust the wisdom of the

locally elected boards and allow a return to sensible levels of

funding. Let me give you an example — let me give you many examples,

very quickly. I don't want to throw too many figures, but these ones

are important: Arrow Lakes School District — $190,000 needed to

maintain present levels of service. This is the amount of money just to

maintain levels of service, not including any salaries. School District

15 in Penticton— $200,000 short; School District 19 in Revelstoke —

$200,000 short; School District 22 in Vernon — a $450,000 deficit;

School District 23 in Kamloops — the budget which they're submitting is

$3.1 million above the

guidelines, above what they're allowed. That's what they need to keep

things going. If they don't, homeowners in Kamloops, which is sitting

there with 25 percent unemployment, are going to face an almost 4

percent increase in their homeowner taxes. School District 77,

Summerland, has a budget shortfall of $220,000. They refuse to submit

any budget that is going to further cut the services, and as a result

taxes are going to go up.

The figures I have just given you

are figures for school boards throughout the central and southern

interior. If you take those shortfalls that are needed to maintain

present levels of service and add them together — if my arithmetic is correct — it comes out to just a little over $5 million.

You

know what? If we look at the $6.5 million that's just been advocated

for Expo's special visitors' program, using that money and putting it

into the educational needs of the school boards throughout the interior

would alleviate their problems. Instead, the needs of these school

districts are being subverted so this government can wine and dine the

dignitaries. Well, I tell you, six and a half million bucks is going to

be one hell of a party. Where the devil are your priorities? Where the

devil are they? Get them straight.

I want to go over some local concerns that have been ignored. Shuswap-Revelstoke — export

of raw logs to other areas: the government has failed to pick up on

this. There is over $12 million each year lost in processing activity,

and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) sits there and

ignores it. The lack of access to timber has been a problem. The

individual operators simply can't get access. There is a consistent

undercut by Westar, and yet the little guy can't get any lumber.

There's

been no program to increase this access. The closure of the Downie

Street sawmill, with 250 out of work.... The logs are now being

exported out of that area. No help for these people.

Additional funds for milfoil removal just requested by the Columbia-Shuswap region were denied. Quality of life — there's

your commitment to environment. Unemployment in Salmon Arm, Armstrong

and Enderby is sitting around 25 to 30 percent. Where is the voice of

concern on these issues? I'll tell you where he is — handing out

lottery money in Okanagan North. He's so busy paying attention to those

things that nobody up there can find him. Okanagan South, agriculture.

There's nothing in the budget for agriculture. There's no assistance

for the majority of farmers who are in severe financial difficulty

throughout the Okanagan Valley, including Boundary-Similkameen.

[ Page 7481 ]

Environment:

I didn't see anything in the budget dealing with this new $26 million

sewerage assistance program. The Premier has been silent on the use of

toxic chemicals in the Crown forests dispute — refusal to talk to the

school boards, refusal to talk to the college students. Where is the

voice of concern?

Headlines

in Kamloops: one-quarter of the people jobless. Hard times remain in

Kamloops. Even the regional Expo committee has gone bankrupt. That's

economic renewal? It's not happening in the interior of British

Columbia. Ordinary British Columbians have not tasted economic

recovery. The Premier of this government has turned his back on the

interior of this province. His budget reflects that truth. People are

leaving the interior. They're voting already and they're voting with

their feet.

The spending priorities of this government

continue to be caught up with the glitz and the glimmer, but those

projects are draining tax dollars from the communities in the interior.

They're acting like gigantic tax siphons pulling money out of those

areas, and not replacing it with any local job creation. They're

draining the lifeblood from the interior communities in sacrifice for

beautiful downtown British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, people in the

interior are tired of being ignored. They're tired of playing poor

country cousin. They're embarrassed and humiliated by this government,

and they're angry with this government. They're angry with its failure

to understand, with its failure to care for people. They're angry with

its isolation and its utter arrogance. People throughout the

interior....

Let me rephrase that. People throughout

British Columbia are preparing to send this tired and empty government

a message. The message is that they don't believe you anymore. They

don't trust you anymore. You destroyed their confidence, insulted their

intelligence and they believe it's time for a change.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the lack of

a quorum. I'm sure everyone wants to come in and listen to the member's

remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, I will summon other members by ringing

the bells and.... We're okay. Please proceed.

[3:15]

MR. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, once again it gives me pleasure to participate in the

budget debate during this new budget that was tabled by the minister

last Thursday.

The last speaker, the member for Okanagan

North, made reference to a couple of items in my constituency, and

while he's still in the House I should set him straight on a couple of

things. The first one has to do with the milfoil program. If the member

would go back just two short years, I think he would find that the

milfoil program has been increased fivefold since I've been the MLA for

that constituency. Further to that, if he examined the documents on

file as received by the regional district, he would find that the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) has stated very clearly that

sometime in the fall he will be examining the performance of the past

year, and the performance of the new fiscal year starting April 1, to

see the success of the program, and if additional funds are required at

that time he would be prepared to have a look at it. I'm sure the

member will find that if he wishes to check the records, rather than

leave the House and my constituents with the false impression that an

adequate job is not being done in conquering and attacking the milfoil

in the Shuswap Lake system.

The member made another remark

about Downie Street Sawmills being shut down. Yes, it's true, Downie

Street Sawmills is shut down. Several forest products operations

throughout British Columbia are shut down; no fault of the provincial

government, Mr. Speaker, but a result of the international recession

that not only the forest industry has faced, but the mining industry

throughout the length and breadth of this province as well. The member

is well aware of that.

Before

the member leaves the House, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to please

cooperate with me — perhaps he can exert more influence on them than I

can — and

talk to the local union involved with Downie Street Sawmills. I've been

trying now for over six weeks to get the local union officers involved

with a very interested buyer who wishes to enter into a fifty-fifty

ownership relationship with the employees. He is attempting to work

through the union, and up to this point very little progress has been

made, even though we have an anxious buyer who would meet on about two

hours' notice, either in the Kamloops office of the local union or in

Vancouver. The member will find, if he wishes to investigate, that I

went to the trouble to make inquiries of the critical industries

commissioner, and Mr. Phillips of the critical industries commission

has been most helpful. He has put some very generous offers on the

table. If these two parties would just get down to his office and meet

with him to try to put a package together.... The buyer is very

interested. He's prepared to be in Vancouver in the critical industries

commissioner's office on very short notice — one day would probably

suffice. If the member would care to make a phone call to the local

union president, I am sure it might assist in getting those workers

back to work. I can assure the member that the MLA from

Shuswap-Revelstoke has left no stone unturned in an attempt to get that

operation back working again. I have the employees' interests at heart.

I have met with them on many occasions — as recently as last Saturday

in the city of Revelstoke — and they understand the situation very

clearly, in regard to what's going on.

Mr.

Speaker, he also made some reference to all the dollars being spent in

the lower mainland — nothing

is happening in the interior. Perhaps he's not spending enough time up

my way. Had he been spending some time up that way, he would have found

that several million dollars are going to be spent on highway

improvement throughout my constituency. On one stretch alone, between

Cambie and Malakwa, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million is

going to be spent in the current fiscal year on highway improvements —

as well as major improvements and upgrading of roads throughout the

entire constituency.

MR. MacWILLIAM: What about the unemployment?

MR. MICHAEL:

Mr. Member, I am well aware that unemployment is high. I am afraid we

are not going to resolve that problem by inflating the facts, by

continual negative comments and negative speeches about how terrible

things are throughout the province, when the member knows full well

that the provincial government is doing everything in its power to

create much-needed jobs throughout the entire province of British

Columbia. He refuses to look at the facts as to what British Columbia

has had to put up with as a result of the international recession. He

knows better, I am sure, but

[ Page 7482 ]

refuses to analyze those facts and explain that to his constituents. He

knows full well, for example, that the forest products industry in the

province of British Columbia has lost somewhere between 17,000 and

20,000 workers in the last three years. And he knows that, as a result

of the multiplier effect, the total job loss is probably 120,000

workers throughout the province of British Columbia.

I see

he chooses to leave the House now and not listen to the rest of the

debate, which is very interesting. It's typical of that member, who

chooses to attack — negative, negative, negative — and when it comes to listening to the facts, he chooses to leave the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the budget. I think it is obviously a result

of good fiscal management when a government and a Minister of Finance can bring

in a document with so many positive things in it: increased expenditures on

municipalities, increased expenditures on education, massive amounts of money

being spent on health, jobs for students, and several increases in other areas.

It's very indicative to me that the Minister of Finance and the government

of British Columbia have done their work well.

It's

good to see that the minister has agreed to a 21.5 percent increase in

the base budget for the forest industry, which I am primarily

interested in — it's the industry I have worked in pretty well all my

life. As a result of the ERDA agreement with the federal government,

this will mean that spending from that agreement alone — never mind the base budget increase — on

silviculture and reforestation is going to double in this new fiscal

year. In the first fiscal year, ending March 31, $22 million was spent

on reforestation out of the ERDA agreement alone, not to mention the

amounts spent by the provincial government and private industry; the

ERDA agreement alone was budgeted for $22 million in its first year of

a five-year program. This coming year that amount will be doubled to

$44 million. We will see $78 million spent under the ERDA agreement in

each of the three succeeding years.

In 1987-88 we will see

new seedlings planted reach a figure of 200 million trees a year. Let

me tell you that in my first year in politics I had meetings with

several foresters and many associations dealing with the forest

industry. That was the target they all emphasized they wanted to see

reached — 200 million seedlings a year — and that target is going to be met in 1987-88.

Mr.

Speaker, while we are on the topic of forestry, silviculture and

reforestation, we should also look at the announcement of the new

forest management fund. The opposition will continue, as they do with

many positive things this government brings in, to ridicule this fund.

But I think that we can look forward to cooperation from the federal

government, industry, the unions and the municipalities to make this

new forest management fund a reality and to make it a dramatic success

in its first year, and we can look forward to many future years of

success through the cooperation of all parties involved.

When

you look at the amount of money that the provincial government is

putting in, $20 million, and we're asking for the federal government to

match that amount by $20 million, to get the cooperation of three other

bodies — being the industry unions and municipalities — to come up with

a total of $70 million, I would be very interested and very surprised

if the federal government did not agree to match that fund to the tune

of $20 million. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if they agree to put

$20 million into this $70 million fund, they will more than save the

$20 million through the unemployment insurance payments alone. So I

think that the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance have a

very good chance and this government has a very good chance of

convincing the federal government to match this amount of $20 million.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

Further

to that, we must be looking at industry to do their share as well. I'm

sure that the Minister of Forests will be having some meetings very

shortly with the various forestry associations throughout the province

of B.C. to find a way for them to divvy up another $20 million, to

match the amount of money put in by the provincial government, to put

into this tremendous new forest management fund. Based on 50,000

employees — and I can say in all competence that there are a lot more

people directly involved in the forest industry than 50,000 employees —

and

in a 12-month calendar, if you look at $20 million to the forest

industry, it's significantly less than 20 cents an hour, and when you

look at the tremendous savings that they just experienced in their WCB

premium reductions, and with the modest upturn that we're witnessing in

the forest industry right now, I don't think that it's an impossible

task to expect the forest industry to find $20 million.

Also,

looking at the unions and the IWA and the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers

of Canada, the ministry has suggested that they might find $5 million.

I can tell you that that's about 5 cents an hour. On an average rate of

pay of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17 to $18 an hour, I don't

think that to ask for 5 cents an hour — which will be tax deductible,

which will mean it'll be down to about 3 cents an hour — is an

unreasonable request to lay on the forest industry unions.

to asking the municipalities for $5 million, I'm sure there will be a

very positive response from municipalities all across British Columbia

to participating to the tune of one-fourteenth — that's $5 million in a

$70 million fund, Mr. Speaker. That's a one-fourteenth contribution to

have hundreds or more workers throughout the province of B.C. working

in the silviculture weeding and thinning programs that are much needed

throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

This

$70 million, this new forest management fund — the concept behind it is

not necessarily to plant more trees, but to thin the carrot patch —

attend the garden, so to speak — because

we have a problem in reforestation. It's not just enough to plant new

seedlings. You must get in there and tend it after those seedlings are

planted. You must take out the weeds, do some thinning and spacing.

Members should be aware that in the forest industry there are millions

upon millions of natural seedlings. Natural regeneration takes place

every season in the province. All the seedlings don't have to be

planted by hand. Nature does a pretty good job. In fact, one of the

problems is that nature does too good a job. Anyone that's been out in

the forest will witness that when nature seeds, it seeds too thick.

There are just too many new seedlings growing in a confined area, and

they need to be thinned like a carrot patch. The real idea behind this

new forest management fund is to tackle the problem in that way.

[3:30]

Before

I take my seat I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for

what I consider to be the tremendous job that he's been doing in

managing the financial affairs of

[ Page 7483 ]

the

province of British Columbia. If one were to go back to the first nine

months of this current fiscal year, the fiscal year we're still in, if

you look at the statements tabled by the Minister of Finance for the

first nine months, you will find that the expenditures in that period,

as compared to the nine months in the previous year, increased by only

3.03 percent. I would suggest to all British Columbians and members of

the House that that is a clear indication that the financial house is

in order in the province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, in

excess of $100 million was spent on fighting the very serious forest

fire problem in the summer of 1985, and if you were to deduct that from

the expenditure column — the amount of money that was spent in the first nine months of the 1985-86 fiscal year — you

would find that the increase would not have been 3.03 percent but 1.49

percent, a clear indication that this government has its expenditures

under control and its financial house in order.

Further to

that, Mr. Speaker, if you were to deduct the extra money spent on the

Coquihalla Highway, which was a deliberately planned project to get

that highway open for 1986 Expo, you would find that not only did the

expenditure column not increase by 1.49 percent but in fact the

government could have shown a reduction in expenditures in the first

nine months of this fiscal year as compared to the previous fiscal year.

listen to the opposition, and I've got to wonder sometimes. They talk

about the plan of the provincial government. I would sincerely like to

hear about their plans. I know that our area — in my constituency — is

really looking forward to Coquihalla 1. I suggest that when the

Coquihalla system is completed, it will prove to be a bigger boon for

those interior communities than Expo 86. Coquihalla I will be open

sometime in the middle of May of this year. Coquihalla 2 will be open

before the snow flies in 1987. Work will be commencing this year on

Coquihalla 3, and we expect to see that highway open sometime within

the next two or three years.

look at the tremendous

extensions and improvements to the overall infrastructure system

throughout British Columbia. I look at improvements in hydro supply, at

the extended highways, the new systems, the new Annacis Island bridge,

I look at the announcement in the throne speech for further extensions

to the natural gas — servicing communities, servicing industry,

bringing down the cost of manufacturing and processing — and I listen

to the opposition talking about not having a plan.

I've

looked at the performance of this government in reducing the cost of

business, lowering hydro, the naming of the critical industries

commissioner, which has resulted in the saving of a couple of thousand

jobs in British Columbia. I look at the announced reductions to

corporations in this budget — reducing the corporate tax from 16

percent to 14 percent. I took at all of the things this government has

done — reducing

property tax as a result of the elimination of taxation on machinery

and equipment; making the doing of business in the province of British

Columbia more attractive, more economical and more competitive — and I

listen to the opposition talking about this government not having any

plans.

I look at the tremendous job done not only by the government in reducing the

cost of government; I look at the job the government has done through their

Crown corporations in reducing the cost of administration. As a result of those

kinds of things, we see a reduction in ICBC premiums of about 6 or 6.5 percent

in the current fiscal year. Along with that, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say

that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has got two reserve funds

— rainy day accounts — in excess of $70 million, a result of good fiscal management.

listened to the chairman of B.C. Hydro speaking about projecting no

further increases in Hydro rates for as far ahead as five years, a

result of good fiscal management, a result of trimming the cost of

administration and overhead. Then I hear about the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who recently made an

announcement that there would be zero ferry rate increases in 1986, the

year of Expo. I'm sure he was perhaps tempted somewhat to look at a

slight increase, but no increase in ferry rates, again as a result of

good management not only in government but throughout the entire system.

Mr.

Speaker, when the opposition is speaking, I wish they would be a bit

more specific on what exactly they would do. What are they going to be

offering the voters in the next provincial election? What are they

going to say to them? That they're going to cancel the Coquihalla

Highway extensions? Is that what they're going to do? The last speaker

was talking about all of the much-needed, the drastically needed money

by all these school boards throughout the province of British Columbia,

and he named several boards, and he named the amounts. He says that

money is drastically needed — they're desperate. I would like some

member of the opposition to stand up and tell this House, so the people

of British Columbia will know exactly what their position is: are they

going to give 100 percent of all those requests? Just answer that

question yes or no. I would like to hear it for my own edification.

They

talk about the much-needed 50 percent increase in welfare rates. I'm

not denying that that money might be needed depending what set of

statistics you look at. Are they going to grant a 50 percent increase?

I'd like them to answer that question yes or no.

While

they're talking about those things, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know

if they intend to increase the deficit. If they do, please tell us. Or

are they going to decrease the deficit? If they're going to decrease

the deficit, where are they going to find the money from the programs?

Which programs are they going to cut to decrease the deficit?

Are

they going to give generous increases to civil servants' demands for

further wage increases, as they did back in the seventies? Are they

going to be giving another 28 percent increase in wages and benefits?

I'd like to have the answer to that, and I'm sure British Columbians

would like to have the answer to that. Do they intend to have a smaller

deficit or a bigger deficit? If they're going to cut programs, which

programs are they going to cut? If they're going to add to it, where

are they going to find the money? Those are the kind of things that I'm

sure people throughout the province would like to hear.

Mr.

Speaker, in concluding, there were a lot of very good, positive things

in the budget. I was very happy to see the Minister of Finance announce

a cap on gasoline tax. I received a lot of comments and concerns

throughout my constituency, and I'm very pleased that that there will

be no further increases in this fiscal year. The gasoline tax can go

down, but it can't go up. I think that was a very good move and is

going to satisfy a lot of concerns.

But if you look at all

the good things in the budget whether it's health, education, student

employment, the student venture loan program — I can go on and on and one, but

[ Page 7484 ]

I've

got to say, Mr. Speaker, that the one that is dearest to my heart is

the one I've devoted most time to today: the increase of 21.5 percent

in forestry, the increased tree-planting program and the formation of

this new forest management fund. I think that will prove to be of

benefit not only to my constituency but to constituencies throughout

the length and breadth of British Columbia, because I believe that the

forest industry is the greatest industry of British Columbia. It's a

greater industry than mining or gas and oil, and it's greater for the

plain and simple fact that it's renewable. It's a crop. You cut it

down, you reseed it and future generations have got it for their use.

You can't say that about a copper mine or a coal mine or a gas well or

an oil field. But you do have it in forestry. I think it's a great

industry, and I'm glad to see this reforestation program increased by

about 250 percent. We will be planting in 1987-88 two and a half times

the amount that they were planting in the NDP years of 1972-75.

Mr.

Speaker, I certainly have a bit of a grin on my face when I listen to

members opposite talking about reforestation. It's very interesting to

go over to the province of Manitoba and see what they're spending over

there on reforestation and the number of seedlings they're putting in

the ground, because....

MRS. JOHNSTON: What is it? Tell us.

MR. MICHAEL:

Well, you just go to your research and find out, and you'll find out

that there's been a significant decrease since the NDP have come to

power in the last couple of years. There's been a decrease in the

number of seedlings planted in Manitoba since the NDP have come to

power during the last couple of years. You can't help but have a bit of

a grin, Mr. Speaker. You listen to the members opposite debating, and

then you go and look at the facts. They criticize the fact that a

piddling 50,000 new jobs have been created in British Columbia. They

criticize that and it's negative, negative, negative. I'm the first to

admit that among those 50,000 jobs there are lots of part-timers — o

doubt about that. But it pays once in a while to go over and have a

look at that province that's heralded as the example for all of Canada,

Manitoba, where the NDP are in power. If you check the exact same

12-month period as measured in British Columbia by the exact same people — Statistics Canada — and

look at Manitoba, you'll see that in British Columbia there are 50,000

more people working today than there were 12 months ago; in Manitoba

it's 14,000.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think what

bothers me most about this budget is the deception it contains, because

it's a dishonest document. I don't understand why this government

cannot level with the people of the province. I don't understand why

they have to bring in these kinds of misleading figures, the

misinformation contained in this document that was presented to us last

week by the Minister of Finance.

Why don't they admit to

the people of the province that the province is in desperate straits in

terms of its economy and its financial situation? Why don't they tell

the people of British Columbia what the situation is? Why don't they

say to us, Mr. Speaker...? Why don't they tell us? Why don't they admit

it, and say: "We have made a gross mistake. The tack that we took in

1983 was incorrect. Yes, we now agree with Richard McAlary, chief

economist for the B.C. Central Credit Union, who has stated that the

moves, the policies and the programs adopted by this government in 1983

have held back recovery in British Columbia"? Why don't they admit it?

Why do they have to continue to mislead and manipulate the people of

the province of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you be negative?

MS. SANFORD:

That is the most positive thing that I can say to this government: be

honest for a change, and maybe you will get somewhere. Maybe the people

of British Columbia will begin to trust this government, Mr. Speaker,

if in fact, for once, they could be honest with them. That's not what's

happened in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, the debt load that

has been created by this government will be a millstone around the neck

of the people of British Columbia for generations to come. You know,

it's bad enough that our young people can't find work; that they feet

that they have no place in our economy. They feel that they can't make

any kind of contribution. And then, on top of that, we saddle them with

this kind of incredible debt that this government has built up over the

years. They have no plan, Mr. Speaker. They have no way out. They only

thing that they have is a document that attempts to mislead the people

of this province, in the hopes that they can get re-elected again.

That's what the situation is.

[3:45]

What makes matters worse is that the government is using money,

which could be used to create jobs for some of these young people, in

order to advertise this false document. They are advertising in the

newspapers, on radio and on television, using money that is so badly

needed to create jobs, to provide a better education system, to provide

better health services in the province, in order to try to manipulate

the people of this province.

The overall figures are

misleading, Mr. Speaker. The government is grossly overestimating what

it thinks will come in revenue this year and underestimating what they

know they're going to have to spend, in order to mislead the people of

the province.

I think my colleague from Nanaimo, the debate

leader for the Ministry of Finance, outlined very clearly the other day

the situation with respect to the deceit that's contained in that

document.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

MS. SANFORD: It is deceit.

Mr.

Speaker, there is dismay felt out there. I think that I can only echo

the words of the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association,

Mr. Eric Buckley, who on the weekend asked for an honest document.

That's all he asked for — an honest document. Not only are the overall

figures misleading; the various figures within the document are

misleading. Special funds for education. The same day that they cut $11

million out of the textbook fund they bring in another special fund

which will provide textbooks. Now who's being fooled by that? I can

tell you, Eric Buckley, the president of the B.C. School Trustees'

Association, is not being fooled by that kind of nonsense.

I'd

like to quote to you from one of the people from the mid-Island area,

one of the people who serves on the school board in School District 69 — not

an NDP member, Mr. Speaker. His name is Patrick Denton. He's quoted,

based on the budget debate that they had within their school

district.... He says the following:

[ Page 7485 ]

"The fiscal framework we have been given is a Trojan Horse, fraught

with measures that are weapons against the educational system. I have

sat here for 18 months — and I'm not being political — but I'm very

mad. I'm very angry, and I think that we have come to point in this

province where the Ministry of Education and the school board have to

work together in support of education. But that hasn't happened.

"Even people on the political

right, who would normally be expected to support the Social Credit

government's educational policies, are speaking out against them."

He gave the example of Eric Buckley, president of the B.C.

School Trustees' Association, who has led the group "down the high road

against a government that in my view no longer cares." This is what we

have come to in this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Denton

said that the board has witnessed the decimation of the system, and

that he only supports submitting the budget on the basis that it is a

provisional budget. He said: "I think it is time that our students, our

teachers and our support people in the public got the message that this

board is no longer going to be a partner in the destruction of the

education system."

MR. HANSON: Partners in destruction.

MS. SANFORD: He doesn't want to be a partner in destruction, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, the ads and the budget tell us that there will be no

increase in taxes. Yet the budget shows that we're going to have a $273

million increase in personal income tax, including that surcharge that

was put on for so-called health benefits. If you work that out, that

comes to an increase of about $200 per household increase in taxes that

people are going to be paying this year. No wonder people are angry — using their money to advertise misinformation.

MR. PARKS: Don't distort the facts.

MS. SANFORD: Why don't you listen? Why don't you be quiet?

MR. PARKS: Just don't distort the facts, and I will.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously did not listen to that last comment,

and it is not worth going over it again for his benefit.

checked on Friday with the building trades people on Vancouver Island

to find out what is happening in that mid-island area. Do you what the

unemployment rate is, Mr. Speaker, among the building trades on

Vancouver Island? It is 92 percent as of Friday. That's recovery?

Mr.

Speaker, the moves that the government made have been detrimental to

the province of British Columbia, and they are felt very strongly

within the constituency that I represent. There are 2,600 people on

welfare in the Courtenay area, in that little area alone on

mid-Vancouver Island, with an additional 950 on the rolls down at the

MHR office in Parksville.

Crown Forest Industries has had

to close down its Courtenay operations, which only adds to the problems

in that mid-Island area. Mr. Speaker. the Vancouver Island Real Estate

Board has issued a booklet which deals with some of the figures on

Vancouver Island with respect to the economy and its future. One of the

things that they point out in their book which they published last year

is contained on page 82: "Over the entire ten-year period from 1975 to

1984, the northern Vancouver Island labour market performed less

satisfactorily than the B.C. or Canadian average. Its situation has

become relatively worse in the post-'81 period." So all of the moves

that were made in 1983, that marvellous so-called restraint program,

the cutbacks in education, the cutbacks in health services, the

cutbacks that were made almost everywhere, have resulted in increases

in unemployment.

These are real estate people that we're

talking about. These are the figures and the statements that they are

making. From the same book: "The Regional District of Comox-Strathcona

has experienced a decrease in building permits issued. A total of 368

permits were issued in 1984 as compared with 561 in 1983." That's

recovery, Mr. Speaker? Those are the moves of this government that are

supposed to be improving the situation in the province. All of those

figures indicate that the exact opposite has been happening.

Mr.

Speaker, the cutbacks have been particularly severe in any

institutional construction as far as the government is concerned; and

of the institutional and government spending, the hardest hit areas and

the biggest cuts occurred in that Parksville-Qualicum area, with

decreases of 155 percent in expenditures. That's supposed to be part of

the recovery program, is it, Mr. Speaker, to put more and more people

out of work? Increase those welfare rolls? Make the young people of our

province even more desperate?

That's what has been

happening. When you have an entire campus close down, as the Malaspina

campus at Parksville did.... That's the kind of thing that happens in

those communities. But all of that is supposed to help the economy,

make things better for British Columbia. All of the figures we have

indicate that that's not happening.

Last Wednesday's

edition of the Comox District Free Press says that the second month of

the new year saw a Comox Valley unemployment figure of 16.2 percent.

That figure, representing Vancouver Island as a whole, with the

exception of Victoria, indicates that the Island is still considerably

behind B.C. as a whole. The provincial average is 13.8 percent. The

national unemployment figure, however, is 10.7 percent. Here in British

Columbia we've been held back by a government that has embarked upon

exactly the wrong economic programs in order to bring us out of this

recession. There were 3,748 active unemployment insurance claimants in

February in the Comox Valley, and that's up from what it was in

January. Usually January is one of the highest months for unemployment

because of the seasonal nature of some of those jobs. But February was

even higher. And we get a rosy picture in this budget that was

presented to us.

The only thing is: the figures aren't

accurate. They're misleading and they're deceitful. People are getting

tired of being manipulated. They're getting tired of having their tax

money used for political advertising which doesn't even give the facts.

It's misinformation at their expense, while their kids are going

without work, while they have people within their families who can't

get hospital care when they need it,

[ Page 7486 ]

while their kids at school are forced to do without because of the horrendous cutbacks that have occurred.

Within

the mid-Island area there is a fairly significant agricultural

community. A number of people involved in agriculture in my part of the

province have gone bankrupt. There is absolutely no increase, no hope

for them under the budget that has been presented — nothing. If you

take inflation into account, it represents a decrease for them.

What

do we find from the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A.

Fraser)? He's saying that, no, it'll be a few years yet before they

ever think about an inland bypass route in that mid-Island area. In

1984, according to information that we find in a report done for the

Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, which the minister

calls socialist information — at least, that's what he said the other day in the House....

HON. A. FRASER: I said it was socialist arithmetic.

MS. SANFORD:

Well, okay. Maybe the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities is

socialist. I had never thought that before, but if the minister says

so, I guess it must be the case. Is that it?

Vancouver

Island in 1984 the per capita expenditure on highways was $14. In the

rest of the province the per capita expenditure on highways in the same

year was not twice that — not $28. It was $203, according to the report

done by consultants for the Association of Vancouver Island

Municipalities.

[4:00]

The

people within those constituencies are angry at this kind of political

expenditure of funds that they have contributed to. Their tax moneys

are being utilized elsewhere in this province. They are being

neglected. They want the jobs; they want the highway. It's long

overdue. It's one of the most dangerous in this province, and the

Minister of Highways knows it. At one time — I think the year was 1979; I should have brought those quotes with me — the

minister said in this Legislature that that highway was one of the

busiest highways in the province. He said he couldn't wait to get the

construction of that road completed. Then in 1985 he said in the House

that the traffic figures didn't warrant construction. Well, the people

in my constituency know that those traffic figures warrant

construction. They know that that highway should have been constructed

years ago, and they know that this government is using highway funds

politically. Rather than building highways on need, they're building

highways in order to suit their own political purposes.

Mr.

Speaker, the people in the mid-Island area are fed up with this kind of

treatment. They're fed up with the dishonesty of this government,

they're fed up with the use of their funds for advertising purposes,

they're fed up with being manipulated by this government, and they

can't wait for an election to ensure that this government is thrown out.

MR. PASSARELL:

Debating this budget today has overshadowed the military action that's

taking place right now between Libya and the United States. It's quite

difficult to stand and talk or come back and say that something isn't

dishonest and it's not a truthful budget when we're almost on the brink

of a nuclear war — the possibility exists. It's pretty difficult for me

to stand in my place and come back on the member for Comox when

something of this nature is taking place in the Mediterranean today.

Oscar

Wilde one time said that in this world there are only two types of

tragedies: one is not getting what you want, and the other is getting

it. I guess when we look at the context of what's happening today in

this budget, it can be looked upon from both sides as a tragedy. I'm

concerned when we start using the words "truthful" and "deception" and

"fraudulent." Often these are the terms that have been used by people

like Khadafy and Reagan when they're talking with each other concerning

their problems in those countries. I don't know if it's really a

fraudulent budget, as the leader of the Tory party, Mr. Peter Pollen,

has said. I'll be talking about Pollen a little bit later.

I'm

going to just speak about my own constituency and what's happening up

there right now. In the paper this week the leader of the Conservative

Party in British Columbia said there was nothing in this budget for the

forestry or mining industry. I don't know. Somebody should get this man

a new pair of glasses and put some lenses in it for him so he can read,

because there's definitely something in the Atlin constituency when it

comes to mining and forestry. A perfect example is the Klappan coal

project, which this government is supporting through port development

in the municipality of Stewart. It is hiring people today. There are

people working up there today on the new port development. Road

construction for the Klappan coal project is happening.

I heard last week — and

I mentioned this in the throne speech debate in regard to student

employment.... I wish I had a magic formula to enable all students to

work, but I just noticed in this budget that the student employment

fund is up 50 percent to $15 million. I was quite concerned a couple of

weeks ago when I got a copy of letter sent to the district of Stewart

in which a union head in Terrace said that he didn't want any projects

approved in the district of Stewart until the union gave their okay for

student employment programs for the summer. I'm quite concerned about

that, because students do need the opportunity to work, and if there is

an opportunity, I don't think somebody should tell them that they

shouldn't be able to work.

MR. REID: Right on. Jobs are the main thing.

MR. PASSARELL: Jobs — that's right, the main thing.

Education

funding is up in this budget. We've seen in the last couple of years

new schools built in just about every community in the Stikine School

District: Telegraph Creek, Atlin, the community I live in, Cassiar,

Dease Lake, Iskut, and expansion of the new school at Lower Post will

be starting this summer. It takes money to pay for the new schools up

there. It has been a long time coming, and this government is going

ahead with it.

Municipal revenue-sharing has increased in

this budget by 9 percent. I think this will be beneficial for the only

municipality in the Atlin constituency, Stewart. We've seen a positive

mood in the area around Stewart in the last couple of months with the

Klappan project. It will benefit the entire area.

Another

aspect in which this budget is increased is in health. We've seen that

they've provided funding just in the last few months for the Stewart

General Hospital.

MR. REID: Right. Doctors for Atlin, too.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right, we do have two new doctors up there now. But when the leader of the Tory party

[ Page 7487 ]

comes

out and says this budget is fraudulent, it's pretty hard to go and tell

the people of Stewart that it's fraudulent when they see that their

hospital is going to continue as is, with increased funding. It's

pretty difficult to tell the people in Stewart that it's fraudulent

because it doesn't deal with mining, when they're seeing a Klappan coal

project come on stream. We see the new forestry stand management fund

providing up to $20 million to create jobs in Silviculture, weeding and

thinning. The forest renewal increases the base budget by more than 21

percent. But then nobody could ever accuse Peter Pollen of being bright.

issue that.... When I went back to the riding this week.... It's

beautiful up there now; the roads are in nice and icy conditions and

it's break-up. But that has nothing to do with the budget or any

government; that's Mother Nature. But passing out the budget, what the

people in the area were very pleased with was the motor fuel tax rate

being capped at January 1, 1986 levels and the statement that the tax

will decrease with oil prices in 1986-87. Unfortunately, our gas prices

in the Atlin area are the highest in the entire province. As a matter

of fact, what we're paying for gas is even higher than in some areas in

the Yukon. It certainly isn't the federal government that is coming out

and trying to help with gas prices. You look back at the federal

government over the last couple of years, and it's the reason that

we're paying such high taxes. It's this provincial government that is

capping the tax level on this.

An issue that I would like

to discuss on a personal basis and that I would like to have seen in

this budget is Sunday openings. I think it is a long time coming. The

people who have come down from the Atlin constituency to meet with the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) have found

him a very straightforward gentleman when discussing these issues, and

I think we will see some positive moves in this area in the near future.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I'd like to. When we talk about Sunday openings — particularly we in Atlin — we're

surrounded by Sunday openings. To the north, the Yukon is open on

Sundays. To the east is west Alaska; it's open on Sundays. With Expo

coming on, we have to have Sunday openings in areas such as Atlin and

across this province. We're having too many tourists that are coming

into this province right now for Expo, and there should be Sunday

openings. I noticed last night when I flew back into Vancouver from

Whitehorse.... How many tourists will be flying into Vancouver airport

on Sunday? Unless we have those Sunday openings, it's going to hurt.

It's not going to give us.... It's going to be more beneficial to have

those Sunday openings, and I certainly hope that with the cooperation

of this House we'll be able to move forward in that direction.

I'll

be supporting this budget because there will be no tax increases.

That's one thing I certainly would have felt bad about, if there would

have been tax increases. It's a little different than the federal

government's budget when you look at what Mr. Michael Wilson has

brought down. It takes positive steps for business, stimulating the

economy in the Atlin area, with Gulf, the Seren mine that is going on

up there and the road construction and the provincial government paying

for part of the cost of that road, because we're seeing private

entrepreneurs hiring people. We're seeing the Gulf project, in which

young people in the Iskut and Deas Lake and Telegraph Creek areas are

being employed — the opportunity to work.

The wages of

these people working at the Klappan project pay taxes. Those taxes pay

for the social services. We see that health care spending is increased.

Without people working.... Mr. Peter Pollen says there are very few

people left in this province working. I don't know where he gets those

figures from, but then, by the same token, I don't know where Peter

Pollen comes from half the time anyway. You have to have people working

to pay taxes to pay for these increased programs and spending

allocations in this budget. Money doesn't grow on trees, and I think

the new economic developments in the north and the taxes that will be

generated from these new jobs for these young people will build a

better future for all of us in this province. I think that's what we're

striving for — to build something better.

As I said before,

I'm pretty disheartened by what I've heard today in the media in regard

to what's happening over in the Mediterranean. I think if we could stay

away from these words "truthful," "not being true" and

"fraudulent"....We see what happens when these labels get thrown around

too much and we have the problems that we do in this world today from

people not being able to sit down and cooperate with each other.

Not everything has a silver lining, but by the same token there is some good in this budget, and I'll be supporting it.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I was not the person to speak at this juncture. I would,

however, like to echo some of the words that the member for Atlin

spoke. I just heard the news that the Americans and the Libyans are

knocking the hell out of each other, and I think it's a darned shame.

There's no question that one thinks when one's on his feet in this

House that this is a very, very important place to be, and it is very

important to the people of British Columbia. But world leaders should

remember that they have a responsibility, and that responsibility

sometimes is abrogated. It is particularly abrogated when one very

powerful nation usurps a small nation, no matter what we think of

Khadafy. He is, in my opinion, a pretty unusual person, but no matter

what we think of him, he is the leader of that country, and I don't

think that the Americans should be usurping their water space, air

space, or any other kind of space. That's the way it is.

will say a word or two about this budget. The member for Atlin maybe

hasn't got it quite straight in terms of why people would call it

fraudulent, why people would call it unusual, why people would call it

dishonest. The reason they're doing that is that this budget does not

do the proper thing in terms of expenditure. It takes three separate

funds — forests, education and health — and puts those funds into a

discretionary account. Now discretion in our democracy is fair enough,

but not to the extent that these funds have been granted. Some $120

million for health, for the minister to hand out at will? I wouldn't

charge the government with getting political with that money; others

would. I would say that's a terrible temptation to put in the hands of

any minister, to say to that minister: we want you to spend this money,

in consultation with who knows who, on whatever programs you feel might

be beneficial to our system. The same thing goes for education and

forestry. As far as I'm concerned, that is not a proper way to run the

finances of our province.

I'm going to have plenty more to

say on that issue, and since I've lost my place now in the budget

debate while waiting for a friend.... I notice the friend is here. Mr.

[ Page 7488 ]

Speaker, I will yield the floor at this juncture to my colleague from Vancouver East.

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The debate is supposed to reciprocate, but the next person on the

speakers' list is the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan). So

with that said, the Chair will recognize in the budget debate the

second member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, people in Prince George will be glad to hear this news, I'm sure.

just thought I'd start with a few comments with respect to the

cabinet-building that's been going on in British Columbia, or at least

the rebuilding that's been going on in the last while. After all the

fun and games and charades and conflict-of-interest problems up to

their eyeballs, the Premier was looking for a squeaky-clean new cabinet

to change that messy image that he had out there with the public. I

don't blame him.

The problem is, it's really much like our

forest industry. We've exported our best material, or it's simply not

available to us, or it's on this side of the House. That's just what

has happened over there. If you compared it to the question of timber

for building a cabinet, it would be kind of interesting.

It's

a fairly motley crew over there. If you think about it on this coast,

what do you get out there in the saltchuck? Well, you get deadheads.

We've got a lot of that left over. That's what the Premier had to use

in rebuilding his cabinet; he had to throw in a few more deadheads in

that construction job. Even on this coast you get a few sinkers, and I

suspect there are a few sinkers over there too, and we're watching them

go down for the first, second and maybe the third time. In some cases,

the material over there is like over mature timber. It's rotten at the

core, and in many ways, in terms of the decisions that have made and

the activities that have gone on, there are chunks of this cabinet that

are rotten to the core. Not much firm wood over there at all; maybe

just a little old Elwood, but not much firm wood over there in terms of

cabinet construction. It's the kind of material that you've got to work

with that no self-respecting carpenter would want to deal with at all.

We've

gone through the exercise. Some of the new material in there in

Education.... Why, for goodness' sake, the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) seemed to forget that he hadn't graduated from grade 12; it

had really been only grade 11. The new minister from Omineca was

thumping subsidized housing, but he'd forgotten that he was getting the

benefits of subsidized housing. The minister of universities over there

has been rather interesting. Most of the time he at least says he

doesn't know the answer to the question, and it doesn't matter what the

question is. He's certainly the most honest of the lot that has arrived

on the scene over there, and we look forward to a great future from him.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

But

there are problems at the top, too, Mr. Speaker. Most of our cabinet

offices are inadequately equipped and staffed. They don't have the

talent they need in today's world. It's one thing to be stuck with

material that the public has provided in terms of the cabinet ministers

themselves, but you haven't really done the job in terms of the backup

people and the whole range of talent that is out there, so many of whom

have left British Columbia in recent years. Look at the material the

Premier brings in, in terms of staff support and that sort of thing.

Has the Premier brought in outstanding economists to help British

Columbia in these trying times after his decade of wrecking the

economy? No, there are no economists on his staff. Are there

specialists in international trade in these times when trade is more

complex, more difficult than ever? No, there are no specialists in

international trade on his staff.

There's none of the kind

of technocrats a modern state needs in terms of backing up this rotten

cabinet. You might at least have patched it up on that side, but you

haven't. There you have the world to choose from — British Columbia and Canada certainly to choose from — but

you have not brought to bear the kind of talent that we desperately

need in terms of dealing with our problems. All too often you've gotten

rid of deputy ministers — or they've left — who were bearing much of

the load in terms of real talent and discipline and ability. The

Minister of Finance is certainly aware of that one. No, what we've got

in terms of the Premier's office, and all too often in the other

offices of this government, are a crew that surround themselves with

political mercenaries who are only interested in political gain, not at

all interested in managing the province of British Columbia. And it

shows. Lord, how it shows!

The latest addition to the

Premier's office is another one of these mercenaries: a man trained in

politics, trained in elections. He's not a manager; not a person who

has economics training, who has training in international trade or any

of these things. He's a political mercenary, and those are the people

who get hired in British Columbia: political guns. Is it any wonder

we've been on a downhill slide for a decade in British Columbia, when

it's run by a gang of political mercenaries? No wonder at all.

Everything over there and in the Premier's office is politics,

politics, politics. That's what it's all about.

The

provincial economy has been on a downhill slide throughout most of the

decade because of that kind of attitude, that kind of staff, and

nowhere is it clearer than in the question of coal policy in this

province. Nowhere is it clearer. We now have the northeast part of the

province awash in red ink — it's on the verge of bankruptcy — and we

have the southeast coal economy of this province moving toward the edge

as well in the same respect. That's the result of this kind of

management with this kind of talent out of this administration, and

while this happens the Premier plays politics.

I asked the

Premier some responsible questions last week on the issues involving

northeast coal and the push by the Japanese to cut both price and

volume with respect to northeast coal, despite the thousands of

promises we got from the former minister and the Premier that these

were firm contracts, that they could not be cut in terms of volume and

price, and I got accused by the Premier of affecting the price of coal

in Japan. Now the price of tea in China I might be able to affect, but

the price of coal in China, I assure you, I can't have any impact on at

all. The Premier never dealt with the issue, which is a $3 billion

investment sliding over the cliff, close to the point of closure. You

never dealt with that. You never dealt with the issue of thousands of

jobs on the line. You didn't deal with the fact that the banks aren't

going to get paid — that the money isn't there to pay them. You didn't

deal with any of that. You didn't deal with the fact that you guys are

never going to see your money back on that B.C. Rail line. You didn't

deal with the fact that there's been subterfuge going on in the funding

of the BCR, and that whole exercise

[ Page 7489 ]

building a half-billion-dollar rail line. You bet he didn't want to

deal with any of that. But we will deal with that, in time.

No,

the Premier never dealt with the real issues, because he was briefed by

his political mercenaries, who are paid at great public expense, so

that he would develop a scenario that would confuse the folks back

home, hopefully. That was all they really needed to get re-elected. It

wasn't a matter of dealing with the real issues, the fact that there

was $3 billion and thousands and thousands of jobs on the line, and the

fact that we would probably never get paid back our own money in the

whole exercise. No, no, the mercenaries aren't interested in dealing

with that.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the major

players on the world scene do know what they're doing. The people from

Japan, who are currently whipsawing this province in terms of coal

price and coal volumes and in terms of these regions of ours, know only

too well what they're doing. The Premier with his crew is pure

bush-league in his capability to deal with these problems. The offshore

people have to be laughing all the way to the bank.

What's

happening? You've got $3 billion in the northeast and close to a

billion in new money in the southeast in expanded coal production.

While we're getting whipsawed around by the Japanese, who are the

primary buyers, it's happening on a scale like we've never seen before.

Three of the province's six major mines are operating at 50 percent.

half production of full contract, and at sharply reduced prices. Three

of the six are operating at half speed after applying all this capital

and getting in tune and so on.

In the southeast, Westar's

Greenhills is now operating at 43 percent less volume in the coming

year, 15 percent lower price. Westar's Bulmer pit has been cut in half

from four million to two million tonnes, and in price from $83 a tonne

to $69 a tonne. Fording, the CPR's company in the Elk Valley, has gone

from 3 million tonnes to 1.5 million tonnes — a cut of 50 percent

again. The price was cut as well, from $83 to $68 a tonne. Shell's

operation, Line Creek, in the southeast part of the province, is now

undergoing negotiations with the Japanese as well. They're being thrown

into the whipsaw game by the major traders from Japan right now. And

Quintette — the biggest problem mine of them all, the jewel of Bill Bennett's ten years, the major mine in northeast coal — was

cut back by $8.50 a tonne last year. This was a contract that was never

going to change. Prices and volume were only going to go up. Now the

big-time Japanese traders say they want a reduction of $21-plus per

tonne from the Quintette operation, and they want a cut in volume of 15

to 20 percent.

The source of that is The TEX Report ,

an industry journal published in Tokyo. They make it abundantly clear,

Mr. Speaker, what they're looking for. In their report of March 3 they

say: "At the Canadian series of talks, the Japanese mills" — that is,

their steel mills — "have demanded such radical markdowns as $21.74 for

Quintette." Then they deal with the cut in volume as well.

[4:30]

The TEX Report

is published by that group, and it's in Tokyo, Japan. When I raised

this with the Premier last week, he thought that it was the Teck Corp.

The Premier is not familiar with this kind of material because he

surrounds himself with political mercenaries rather than with people

that really know the score or would want to get to the root of these

problems and solve them.

There's the terrible smell of

failure around everything to do with northeast coal. and the Japanese

material and documents, the business material that is available, show

that more clearly every day. There is a stench of failure around the

biggest project of Bill Bennett and his decade in British Columbia.

It's

been an incredible, highly professional whipsaw game on the part of the

Japanese in dealing with this administration in this last decade. What

do they do? They play one country against another in terms of serving

their national interest. You can't blame them. but we should surely

realize that's what they're up to. So they play Canada against

Australia. That's good for starters. Then they play one region against

another. serving the Japanese national interest. In British Columbia

you create a new coal region in the northeast to play off against the

southeast, and get them competing against one another to serve Japanese

interests. Then you go further: you play one company off against

another to serve Japanese national interests. So we get Denison and

Quintette played off against Fording, we get those people played off

against the Bullmoose operation, we get them played off against Shell

Resources, and on it goes.

In that kind of game, what we're

dealing with is Japan Inc. and against that we have bush-league Bill.

Bush-league Bill against Japan Inc. Mr. Speaker, we don't have a chance

in that kind of game, and that's become abundantly clear in recent

weeks. We've got the problem of competing with other countries, of

competing within regions, and we've got the problem of companies

competing between themselves against Japan Inc. How do the Japanese

deal with these questions? Maybe there are some clues for my

bush-league friends over there in seeing how the Japanese actually

function and operate on the world stage.

What do they do?

They've got a ministry of international trade and investment, and that

ministry has a raw materials procurement

section for analysis and

planning; that's within MITI's steel industry bureau. They serve the

country's steel cartel, the cartel being a single group of the many

players within the steel industry. They set up the system for coal

purchase, and this single group in turn takes advantage of outside

competing countries, regions and companies. It's a highly

sophisticated, coordinated procurement program. It works to limit the

ability of the coal supplier to play off one Japanese steel mill

against another. That's smart, Mr. Speaker; that's clever; and it does

serve their national interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've been doing it for 30 years.

MR. WILLIAMS: You'd think we might have caught up to them, or tried to, but we haven't.

What

does this group do, the procurement section? They set long-term

contracts to log suppliers into agreements over a period of years. They

put in some equity investment to allow a window and a say in the

operation of the supplier, and we've certainly seen that with respect

to Quintette. Frequently they have customized boat-loading facilities

at ports that relate directly to Japanese coal carriers. They have a

designated negotiator to represent all of the steel firms in the unit:

one negotiator for all of the companies within Japan. There's a sharing

of all coal-related technology among the individual steel firms and a

blending of all the coal brought into the country, which is then shared

proportionately between those mills. There's an interim consensus on

what

[ Page 7490 ]

amounts

should be purchased, and from which countries, and they designate a

trading company to handle the importation of the coal and the

day-to-day paperwork.

It's a highly coordinated exercise,

with personal contact with the supplier, but all arranged through this

very sophisticated hierarchy. The reasons are all too obvious in terms

of dealing with us, the country cousins here in British Columbia. One

study out of Calgary said: "The study commissioned by Canadian Energy

Research Institute concluded the Japanese have encouraged the

development of major coal projects, such as the northeast, in order to

flood the coal market in hopes that prices would become depressed."

They've been incredibly successful. Their major goal in terms of world

coal price has indeed been achieved.

So we're dealing with

Japan Inc. If we're going to be realistic we must put government, or

its equivalent, at the bargaining table too. These companies in British

Columbia don't have a chance in terms of future success unless there's

some coordinated action on the part of government, and that has not

been happening in British Columbia. I would argue.... I have no doubt,

Mr. Speaker, that the cutbacks we've seen so far in British Columbia in

coal production would not have occurred if there had been coordinated

government activity to see that they did not occur. You don't have the

capability over there to deal with these players. If you wanted to make

sure that we didn't get the cutbacks in British Columbia, you should

have been at the bargaining table. We're taking a beating now. There's

no way these regions of British Columbia, or these companies within

British Columbia, can do the job themselves.

Look at what the president of Quintette, Mr. Kostuik, said just last month:

"You've got to remember that the fundamental precept

of the contracts caused a whole bunch of money to be spent, both public

and private. It's one thing to reduce the price of coal so the

profitability of the equity holders dries up, but to reduce the price

so that obligations to the banks are jeopardized is intolerable. To

reduce the price to the point where the thing is not viable is not

honourable."

I think he is right. But can he deal with that alone when he

is dealing with Japan Inc? No, he can't. He doesn't have a chance in

the world in dealing with Japan Inc., particularly with you rubes over

there who sit on the sidelines. He said that Quintette will be able to

meet its debt obligations only if price cuts of $8.50 a tonne,

reluctantly swallowed by the company last year, are repealed. He says

they can only survive at Quintette if they get the $8.50 that was taken

away from them last year. But what does Japan Inc. say? They say no.

"We want another $21 a tonne cut off, and we want the volume cut by 20

percent." That's what Japan Inc. Is saying. This nice fellow, this

president, this captain of industry is talking about honourable men. I

don't blame him.

What he is really saying is that they've

been led astray. They didn't understand the way the game is played. He

is saying that those contracts aren't what they thought they were.

They're not firm, as government members over there said, as the

government member who sits in Dawson Creek sulking because he's not a

cabinet minister anymore said.

The people in the southeast are in the vice as well because of the whipsawing.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I got here very early.

Three

billion is being dissipated and another billion in the southeast. As

the man from the southeast says, he has the same problem as the man

from the northeast. What does Mr. Morrish, the president of Fording,

say? He says it's unreasonable. He said to a coal conference just last

fall: "It's unreasonable to expect us to continue to shoulder the

entire burden" — i.e., we in the southeast are getting hosed more than

the people in the northeast, we're getting hosed more than the

Australians, and it isn't fair. He's right: it isn't fair; it isn't

right. But he's a small company dealing with Japan Inc. Against them he

doesn't have a chance. The end result is that unemployment levels in

the southeast are now at 21.4 percent. That compares with Newfoundland

at 21.3 percent.

The low-level competence of the Premier's office is the reason we're in trouble in the coalfields of British Columbia — make

no bones about that. In many ways we're just a backwater under this

administration. The people on the other side play their politics

Alabama-style. We can't afford to manage this province of British

Columbia Alabama-style. British Columbia has a great reservoir of

natural resources. It should be the envy of any other jurisdiction in

the world. It's being dissipated on a grand scale under this

administration.

We have talent that we could be applying,

but we're not. We need more muscle in dealing with Japan Inc., but it's

not being applied. We need more intellect in dealing with Japan Inc.,

but it's not being applied. We simply need more talent. We need a

government that cares and works, and we have one that does neither

right now under this Premier. We cannot survive as a major trader when

we have people like this running the province of British Columbia. We

need to be developing new institutions and new methods, and bringing in

new talent and new staff to deal with the tough reality of the trading

people out there, these new players on the world stage. That should be

our number one priority in British Columbia; otherwise we're not going

to have secure jobs in the future at all. We're never going to get them

when we have a government that surrounds itself with the kinds of

people it does. When the number one priority is bringing political

mercenaries into the Premier's office, you can be assured that the

economy of British Columbia will not be well served.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, last Friday and again on Monday there have been many

references to the budget which I personally find quite unparliamentary.

Such terms as "deceitful," "fraudulent," and whatever, are totally

unacceptable to us. Most distressingly, though, there appears to be

some sort of aura of mystery from some quarters that would indicate

they don't know what's happening. I don't