1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3511 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 3511

Borrowing for B.C. Ferry Corporation. Mr. Stupich –– 3511

British Columbia Railway. Mr. Stupich –– 3512

Automatized telephone soliciting. Mr. Nicolson –– 3512

Travel by ministers. Mr. Howard –– 3512

Tabling Documents –– 3513

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Barrett –– 3513

Mr. Strachan –– 3516

Mrs. Wallace –– 3520

Mr. Michael –– 3523

Mr. Mitchell –– 3524

Mr. Blencoe –– 3527

Mr. Lauk –– 3531

Mr. Ree –– 3535

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1984

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like all members of the

Legislature to know that the daffodils are from the best bloomin' city

in the world, courtesy of Mr. McGuffie of The Daisy Chain.

I would also like to introduce some distinguished visitors in the

members' gallery today: Jack Mumford, Dianne Ackerman, Bill Shave,

Queen Victoria and Al Frame. These people, along with several other

people representing all areas of the province, have just returned from

a very successful marketing trip in Alberta, where they were very well

received. I'm sure they convinced many residents of Alberta to escape

winter and come to our part of the world. I would like the House to

welcome them and thank them for their efforts.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome four of the five

guests, but I want to remind the House that the last time a monarch

visited a parliamentary legislative assembly the Speaker was beheaded

because of that transgression — and I so move. [Laughter.]

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we

have two members from the faculty of medicine at UBC who could perform

the operation: Dr. John Greig and Dr. Ron Ford. Also in your gallery we

have three residents of the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain:

Mr. Raj Khanna, Mr. Dev Kapahi and Mr. Grant Willie. I'd ask the House

to make them all welcome.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming

some staff from the employment action centre in Vancouver Centre. Mr.

Tom Lalonde and some of his people are with us this afternoon.

Oral Questions

RENT CONTROLS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. As recently as February 14 the minister

indicated that rent increases are sinking below 10 percent and down to

zero in the absence of rent controls. Will the minister advise what

sort of reporting mechanism he used to come up with such incredibly

wrong information?

HON. MR. HEWITT: First, I want to observe that the daffodils of the member opposite are immature. He will note that mine are in full bloom.

MR. BLENCOE: But yours are dying.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the second member for Victoria is using selective

quotes. I think I indicated in my comments of February 14 — and I'd have

to review them — that there was indication of some rents going below 10 percent

and some rents even being at zero. In some apartments in Vancouver and elsewhere

rents have dropped below their existing rent levels because of vacancy rates,

and in some cases landlords were giving incentives to have tenants move in.

I believe, Mr. Member, that on the average some statistics indicate that in

certain brackets of accommodation rents are around 10 or 11 percent. I can get

further statistics and report back to the House if you would like.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary. I wish to serve notice that I

will table 23 notices of rent increases following question period.

These range from a low of 32 percent to a high of 103 percent. What

does the minister have to say to these unfortunate victims of your

current rental policy?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member, of course, is being selective

again. I can appreciate that there are occasions where the existing

rent levels may be well below market due to rent controls being in

place. In effect the landlord has subsidized the tenant for a number of

years and is now "catching up." I can accept that. In some cases some

landlords are abusing the privilege, if you will, of going to excessive

rent increases. Those tenants have the ability to go to the

rentalsman's office and deal with the rent review procedure which is in

place. I can come forward with samples. You have 23, and I am sure I

can get 23 that would indicate rent increases for this particular year

are below the 10 percent figure. I think we have to recognize that when

you drop 23 on the table in this House, it doesn't say that everybody

is being charged excessive rent increases.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister, unfortunately, is trying to avoid

the issue that indeed there are some glaring discrepancies between the

minister's previous statements in this House and the facts of the

situation, which I am tabling. Will the minister agree to an impartial

inquiry to assist him in his failure to grasp what is happening now

that rent controls are being lifted in British Columbia and tenants in

this province are living in fear because of your policy and your

attitude toward tenants?

MR. SPEAKER: Part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have available, of course,

the information and statistics provided to me by my ministry and the

rentalsman's office, and are kept up to date, from time to time, as to

the impact. I would say that the member opposite must realize that in

the long term rent controls impact on the tenant as well as the

landlord. He can recognize that if landlords are going to subsidize

tenants because a government has become involved in the marketplace,

then you are not going to see new accommodation coming onstream. You're

going to see existing accommodation deteriorate and the rental

accommodation in those buildings becoming worse and worse, and that is

not fair to the tenant, Mr. Member –– I, for one, would like to see the

marketplace work with regard to the landlord-tenant relations in this

province.

[2:15]

BORROWING FOR B.C. FERRY CORPORATION

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Finance. Table 8 in the budget lists the borrowing requirements of the

province for 1984-85, including $75 million for B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The manager of B.C. Ferry Corporation says that this statement is in

error. Does the Minister of Finance know something that the manager of

B.C. Ferry Corporation doesn't know?

[ Page 3512 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the member has

raised the question, because the projected borrowing requirements for

the British Columbia Ferry Corporation are considerably less than that

which was produced in the papers associated with the budget. All

members will realize that it's an off-budget item, but nonetheless it

forms part of the report to the Legislature and to the people of B.C.

The figure was supplied by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. I

think the reason for the discrepancy can be attributed to a

considerable delay between the time the figure was reported and the

absence of an update of that figure. Certainly the borrowing

requirements for the Ferry Corporation for capital purposes are going

to be less than was indicated for the fiscal year of 1984-85.

MR. STUPICH: Would the Minister of Finance agree that there

will be $75 million less than the $75 million figure quoted? The

manager of B.C. Ferry Corporation states that all of these improvements

that they hoped to do, but were prevented from doing because of

restraint, will be financed out of operating revenue.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't confirm that there will be

absolutely none of the $75 million required. I believe that the general

manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation has indicated that it would be a

very low figure. It is a tribute, I think, to the management of the

British Columbia Ferry Corporation, and to the policies of this

government, that we have reached that happy position. But I do indicate

to the House that the borrowing figure as reported should have been

updated. Now whether the blame rests squarely with the Ministry of

Finance or squarely with the Ferry Corporation, or is a shared blame,

is a matter that the general manager and I are going to be discussing

in the next little while.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

MR. STUPICH: I would recommend to the minister that he phone the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, as we did.

I have another question for the Minister of Finance. Again referring

to the budget speech, page 6, speaking about the debt of the BCR: "This

debt was incurred to finance construction costs, mainly on the Dease

Lake extension, which cost more than $200 million." The latest

financial statements for BCR show the total cost of the Dease Lake

extension, including all the litigations and the settlements that were

made, to be $98.2 million. Where did the figure of over $200 million

come from?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is misinformed.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll accept that answer. I'd like to ask the minister: am I misinformed by Public Accounts , or am I misinformed by the budget speech?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I understand that to be a question, Mr.

Speaker. I don't know if it is in order or not. I believe that the

member is mixing apples and oranges. In his absence yesterday I dealt

with a series of questions that he posed with respect to the British

Columbia Railway. I repeat — not with rancour — that I believe the

member is not comparing identical aspects of BCR operations.

AUTOMATIZED TELEPHONE SOLICITING

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. Over the weekend a

two-year-old child nearly choked to death because the family telephone

was tied up by an automatic dialing machine. Has the minister decided

to immediately ban the use of automatic dialing and recorded message

machines?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's a matter that I'd be prepared to look

into in more depth, and report back on to the House as soon as I have

some practical information of value. Obviously this is an odious

program that has been brought forward in British Columbia, and one that

we should find means of eliminating.

MR. NICOLSON: To the minister again, I brought this matter up

during his estimates; what have you done since then? This is another

one. Doctors' lines were tied up.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to bore the

House with daily progress reports. When we have something effective to

offer to the members, I'll be certain to give a worthwhile report.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has said that when we have some

useful progress there will be a report, so I expect we can expect a

report in the next year?

HON. MR. McGEER: I wouldn't want to have the NDP

schedule of action transferred to our particular government, but I would remind the members....

MR. LAUK: How about the tunnel — is that on schedule?

HON. MR. McGEER: Is that on schedule? Would you like me to

answer that question or shall I go back to the other? Perhaps we should

deal with the questions one at a time. I'd be quite pleased to

entertain a question from the second member for Vancouver Centre. For

the moment, Mr. Speaker, to the person who asked the legitimate

question, I should remind the House that this Legislature regrettably

does not have jurisdiction over the telephone company. That's a matter

that's under federal jurisdiction and, like so many other matters under

federal jurisdiction, is abominably managed.

TRAVEL BY MINISTERS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Finance if it has been with his knowledge and support at this time of

restraint that the allocation for out-of-province or international

travel by cabinet ministers and their staff has more than doubled for

this year compared with last year's figure.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record that

increased international travel by members of this government on behalf

of the people of the province and the continued....

Interjections.

[ Page

3513 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do they want the answer, Mr. Speaker?

It's a matter of record that we are adding emphasis to that

activity. The hon. member for Skeena would know, therefore, that that

is a matter of public record; indeed, it is a matter of policy, and as

Minister of Finance I would be aware of that, and I endorse it.

MR. HOWARD: I take it that the answer was yes.

Could the minister tell the House whether all of this international

junketing and travelling will be checked by him for validity of purpose

before the trips take place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of each trip is

clearly stated before it takes place. As far as my responsibilities are

concerned, I believe that I will be carrying them out in terms of....

MR. NICOLSON: Do you want to bet?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Is the member suggesting malfeasance of duty?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Certainly the purpose of each trip in question is clearly understood to the extent that I am required to understand it.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as the Minister of Finance was one of

those in New York who used public funds to take friends to Broadway

shows, can the minister confirm that none of the ministers who use

these public funds for international travel will at the same time be

taking vacations in those exotic spots in the world?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the only answer that I can give

to that member is that I did not take friends to Broadway shows in New

York, period.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report of the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia for 1983.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to table the documents I referred to in question period today.

Leave granted,

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: I had the opportunity of participating in this debate prior

to the adjournment for lunch. In my remaining time I wish to deal with this

government's inability to collect money from the forests of the province

of British Columbia, as outlined by the ombudsman's report to this House.

There has been some suggestion that my colleague the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and my constituency mate, the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), were somehow saying naughty things

about the government's handling of the forests, and saying naughty

things about the minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think they said

anything naughty at all. As a matter of fact, on reviewing the

ombudsman's report, I don't understand why the Socreds aren't calling

for the minister's resignation for his mishandling of forests in the

province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: There's the only man in the world who would go

to Australia to sell coal to the Australians. Mr. Speaker, it is always

a pleasure for the minister to leave this chamber.

I repeat what the ombudsman said in his report. I note that rather

than deal with this report, the government finds it necessary to use

one of their back-benchers to attack the ombudsman as the messenger.

This is what the ombudsman said about a minister of the Crown:

"There are five major facilities at which scaling procedures

similar to those at Shoal Island were employed. BCFP operates three of these,

and the remaining two are operated by MacMillan Bloedel and by Western Forest

Products (in which BCFP owns a one third interest). Since the same scaling procedures

were used, it would appear likely that logs were missed in the same fashion."

I'll remind this House that a former Social Credit Minister of

Forests said that the amount of money lost to the people of British

Columbia may be three times more than was estimated by the ombudsman in

his report. That was Mr. Williston.

"In an internal memo on this possibility, the ministry has stated:

"'In the period in dispute, no check scales to

ascertain the correct number of logs were carried out at (these)

operations. Hence there is no data available that could support

allegations that logs were missed. (The Superintendent of Scaling)

thinks it is unlikely that logging contractors working in these areas

have data indicating incorrect scales, nor have, to his knowledge,

logging contractors raised this point.'" I read now from the report and

comment on this memo:

"I don't know whether this means that it is unlikely

that there were incorrect scales, or that it is unlikely that there is

evidence available to prove that there were incorrect scales. I do know

that the situation requires closer examination before one can conclude

whether or not, or the extent to which stumpage payments are also owing

from operations at these locations."

Mr. Speaker, this report from the ombudsman documents the fact that

the government has lost tens of millions of dollars through the

incompetence and bungling of the Ministry of Forests. There is no

greater indictment of the mishandling of the resource of this province

than this ombudsman's report. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) should be asked to resign by this whole chamber. While

people are lining up at soup kitchens to get something to eat, while we

[ Page 3514 ]

have unemployment in this province — unemployment

insurance registration is more than 200,000 people — this government

has squandered tens of millions of dollars — documented by the

ombudsman — and has moved not one whit to correct this situation,

except to find excuses to attack the ombudsman personally.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, what do the government's own figures show in terms of

the income? I want to point out another fact that has not been revealed

related to this particular matter, one that should be clearly

understood by every citizen of this province when it comes to

understanding how incompetent this government is and how they've

squandered tens of millions of dollars.

According to the government's own statistics, timber sales revenue

in 1979-80 amounted to $561 million. Timber royalties and the logging

tax that year amounted to well over 35 percent. Timber sales revenue

for the government the next year was down to $233 million; timber sales

revenue for 1981-82 was down to $78 million; in 1982-83 it was down to

$64 million; and in 1983-84 it is revised to $113 million.

What do these figures mean, Mr. Speaker? This is what has been going

on in the forests of British Columbia. It means that in 1980, when

timber sales overall totalled $1.060 billion, government revenue from

those sales was $300 million –– 28 percent of the value of the timber

sales. We, the people of British Columbia, received 28 percent back as

our stumpage fees and royalties from the timber that was cut in the

province. In 1981 timber sales amounted to $923 million, but our

revenue dropped to $107 million — a total of 11 percent of the sales, a

15 percent drop in revenue. New scaling procedures lost the people of

British Columbia approximately $140 million that year. What is the

answer to this? The back-benchers come in and say: "Fire the

ombudsman." They lost over $140 million that could have been used in

schools, hospitals or construction in this province. Where does the

money come from, they say; government has to get out of the taxpayer's

pocket. This is the only instance in the world where money grows on

trees, and it grows on trees for the forest companies. In 1980 our

share was 28 percent. In 1981 it dropped to 11.6 percent. In 1982 there

was $903 million worth of sales, and we the people got back that year

$83 million; our share dropped to 9.2 percent.

Our share dropped by 66 percent in two years. This is the most

serious scandal in the history of managing the forests in the province

of British Columbia. Every newspaper editorial that I've read demands a

public inquiry into this, and this government's only response is to

attack the ombudsman and opposition MLAs. Hundreds of millions of

dollars have slipped through the fingers of the people of this

province. Cutbacks have been taking place in schools and hospitals in

this province, and the blatant facts are that the mismanagement by that

minister, as detailed by the ombudsman, has been dealt with by the

government as if it were a little pinprick.

What about 1983, Mr. Speaker? In 1983 there was $1.197 billion in sales, and

government revenue that year was $139 million — 11.6 percent. In 1984 there

is $1.390 billion, and the government revenue will be $163 million — 11.7 percent.

In the last four years, including the projection for this year, we have lost,

and will lose, approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars from stumpage

fees, timber royalties and licences in the province of British Columbia. That

is a very serious charge, and I back up the charge with the ombudsman's

report, plus the government's own figures.

1 ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to explain to the people of British

Columbia why our revenue from the forests has dropped by 66 percent.

They can't use as an excuse that the markets were down. This formula

has been worked out on gross sales and gross revenue back to the

government, so it's got nothing to do with the fluctuation of the

market. There was a dramatic shift in the method of collecting money

back on royalties and stumpages, and that dramatic shift has been in

favour of the big forest companies. These serious charges have been

made by the ombudsman and the government has done absolutely nothing.

I charge, here on the floor of this House — and will do so publicly

anywhere I'm asked to — that the government has been so incompetent

that they have mismanaged the forest department and ministry so badly

that they have lost the people of British Columbia close to

three-quarters of a billion dollars, and have added to the serious

economic situation in the province of British Columbia because of their

incompetence. I challenge the Minister of Forests, I challenge the

Minister of Finance, I challenge the Premier of this province to go on

television and explain to the people of British Columbia why this has

been allowed to continue, why no action has been taken on this

ombudsman's report, why we do not have a public inquiry. Mr. Speaker,

it is a stinking, rotten scandal, and it is covered up by this

government that refuses to deal with the fact that they are allowing

the forest companies to get away with huge sums of money that belong to

the people of this province.

These are not idle charges of an irate member of the opposition.

These are the facts that the government reveals itself in its own

public accounts, and in the ombudsman's own report. When you have a

major newspaper saying that there's something smelly about the

ombudsman's report being brushed aside by the government, when you have

citizens of this province being asked to cut back their demands in

schools and hospitals — with the bleating and pleading of these

so-called money managers, with their wreckonomics, saying that there's

no money around....

They have yet to explain to the citizens of this province why there

has been such a dramatic drop in revenue from stumpage in the province

of British Columbia. I charge that some of these companies have been

getting free logs. They have not been counted, not been taxed. There

has been no stumpage and no royalty from them. And these companies have

been getting away with it.

What will be the government's response to the ombudsman's charge?

What will be the government's response to its own figures? It'll say:

naughty, naughty socialists for raising such things. Well, they're sure

as heck silent today, aren't they? Usually they have little quips,

little asides to throw across the floor. I challenge any one of those

cabinet ministers to stand up and explain why there is a coverup, why

there's no public inquiry, and explain the discrepancy in these

figures. You're not going to hear a word from any one of them.

Mr. Speaker, it is a scandal. It does stink. Those trees belong to

the people of this province. You've had a 66 percent decrease in the

amount of revenue we've collected from those trees, and you haven't

given one Socred explanation why there's been a 66 percent decrease in

the collection of that money. You go out and cut off $25 from somebody

on welfare, you go and take $50 away from somebody who is handicapped,

and these forest companies are getting away

[ Page 3515 ]

with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars

simply because you are too sloppy or too stupid to collect the money.

Is there anybody in this province who gets away without paying their

share of the revenues? Nobody,

We're treated with dumb silence by the government benches when this

report is dealt with. We've got a public out there clamouring, through

respectable newspapers, for a public inquiry, and the only response we

get from this government is personal insult against members of this

chamber, Shoot the messenger. Attack the ombudsman. Criticize my

colleague. But no matter how you slice it, three-quarters of a billion

dollars has gone out of the public purse of British Columbia in the

last five years because of the mismanagement of that minister and this

government. I challenge the Minister of Finance, I repeat, to get up

and explain in this House why these revenues have dropped so

dramatically. I challenge the Minister of Finance to tell us whether or

not he's ever spoken to the Ministry of Forests about this scandal. I

challenge the Premier of the province to tell us whether or not he

intends to meet those small loggers in his office and deal with this

issue. And I challenge that government over there to demand, to insist,

upon a full public inquiry into this issue.

Oh, this is just a few minutes of discomfort for you, and you know

very well that you hope it'll all go away and be forgotten. If a little

trouble is stirred up, you can get up and attack the ombudsman again

and call him names. That inane, stupid insult from the member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), attacking the ombudsman

personally, is no substitute for logic and reason. Those kinds of

dumbbell comments are used as a smokescreen and a mask to cover up this

stinking scandal. The fact is that your own figures show that

three-quarters of a billion dollars have escaped the taxpayers of

British Columbia, and you haven't got a word to say about it — not a

peep. Put your heads down. Read your books. Say your prayers. But avoid

dealing with this issue. It stinks! It's rotten! It's unfair to every

decent person in this province to have this report in our hands, these

accusations made by the ombudsman, and the minister leaving town and

the cabinet beetling off.

You talk about businessmen's management of our resources. You talk

about having responsibility for making tough decisions. You sure as

heck make tough decisions for the ordinary people of British Columbia.

You get on television and bleat and tell the handicapped why they must

do without $50 a month; go down there and tell the people on welfare

why they need a $25 cut. But at the same time you give that kind of

wreckonomics explanation, stand up and have the guts to tell the people

of British Columbia why you are hiding from this report and why you

won't have a public inquiry. You're hiding something and you know it.

You know you're smokescreening. You know what you're hiding — the

incompetence that has lost the people of this province threequarters of

a billion dollars — and you won't have a public inquiry to do something

about it. You're so stupid as a government that I do not charge

criminal intent; I do not charge guile or deceit; I just charge

straight stupid policies that have allowed this to happen.

The incompetence of that minister has been catalogued by the

ombudsman himself. If it were just me, you could attack me and say:

"He's going anyway." Or you could attack my girth or my smile or my

clothes or say anything else you want about a socialist. But you've got

a dilemma, Mr. Speaker, and the dilemma is that the ombudsman has made

these charges. So what have you done in response? You've attacked the

ombudsman. If there is any apology due in this chamber, the apology is

due from the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who

attacks the ombudsman in this chamber and then runs and hides. I say

that's disgraceful and shocking in this chamber to attack the messenger

rather than deal with the message. If you've got a beef against the

ombudsman, call him to the bar of this House. It is the former Socred

Minister of Forests, Mr. Williston, who has said that the figures

involved may be three times more than what the ombudsman says. Is Mr.

Williston a socialist? Is Mr. Williston a crackpot'? Is Mr. Williston

some kind of nut running around against the government? Mr. Williston

is a former Minister of Forests, and he's made a public charge that is

serious and indicts this government on this very issue. He says the

money lost on this log-sorting system may be three times the amount

said by the ombudsman. I haven't heard one cabinet minister get up and

attack Mr. Williston yet. Haven't you got your dense pack ready to have

a go at him either?

All you can do is attack people as individuals, make smearing

remarks about the ombudsman, but you still haven't dealt with the basic

problem outlined in his report, and you have not dealt with a public

outcry demanding a public inquiry. I'll bet you my bottom dollar,

folks, that when I sit down there won't be a murmur or a cry from the

government saying they want a royal commission or a public inquiry. The

Minister of Finance has squandered this money, the Minister of Forests

is incompetent to allow this to happen, and the Premier has yet to say

a word publicly about this mess. You don't care. What it really boils

down to is a loss of ethics or morality by a government. A government

that would accept this ombudsman's report and do absolutely nothing

about it is a government that is frankly amoral.

[2:45]

What about the business community in this province? It keeps its

mouth shut about this issue. They don't want to talk about it down

there in the major executive suites of this province. "Oh," says BCFP,

"we don't owe any money. We don't want to pay anything back." What

about some poor person who mails in his social service tax and is out

by about $5 or $8? They'll have 14 bureaucrats chasing after him in

Cadillacs to get the $5 or $8. But when it comes to a big forest

company in British Columbia — nothing. We can't collect the money from

them: they're too big, they're too nice, they're cutting our trees.

This is a government for the super-rich and super-powerful, and when a

little strip is torn off that mask and we get to see for the first time

the scandalous mishandling of the resources of this province, we find a

government that is strangely silent in the government benches, not

saying a word.

It's a pity that I have to refer to the ombudsman. It's a pity that

I have to refer to Mr. Williston. If it could only be the rantings of a

wild socialist we could deal with this problem. But this is not some

wild charge of an imaginative member of the opposition. This is a

report from the ombudsman, who clearly spells out what this stinking

mess is. These are the figures from the government's own public

accounts that show how much money we've lost. What is the government's

response to it? Absolutely nothing.

You tell the middle-class couple who live in suburbia, British

Columbia. why their child is having limited access to a wide variety of

educational experience; you tell the people

[ Page 3516 ]

up in Nelson why they're closing their

post-secondary institution; you tell the blind why you can't cough up

$39,000 to translate their books into braille. You tell us how you make

the tough decisions. You haven't made a tough decision when it comes to

the forest industry. You've let them get away with murder, and you

haven't done a thing about it even when this report is in front of you.

It is a stinking scandal. It is a mess, and you have not lifted one

finger to investigate what is going on with the loss of this kind of

money. I have not mentioned a whit of there being criminal intent. I

have not mentioned that there is any kickback or payola. I put it down

to simple, frank, absolute stupidity and incompetence, and when it

comes to stupidity and incompetence, this government has established

new hallmarks. Three quarters of a billion dollars gone from the people

of British Columbia. Those trees are growing there for our benefit.

Here's the report. Mr. Williston makes the same accusation, and they

have done nothing.

Oh, it's just a few painful minutes, Mr. Speaker, and I'm through.

Just a few more painful minutes, a little more inconvenience, and

you'll go ahead with your juggernaut mentality. You'll go out there and

give your pious claptrap about how you're managing the economy of

British Columbia and being responsible. God, those words must choke on

the way out of you when you've begun to understand what has gone on and

you won't even deal with the ombudsman's report. Write it down as me

making it up? You can't do it on this one. Write it down as an NDP

plot? Write it down as the figment of the imagination of some

over-zealous opposition member? You can't do it on this one.

This is your own ombudsman crying out for justice, decency and

morality in a government that is frankly incompetent in dealing with

the resources of this province, and the record proves it. I predict we

will never see the smiling face of the Premier on television discussing

this report. I predict we'll never see the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) on television discussing this report. I predict we'll

never hear or see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) discussing

this report. This is a mess. It'll linger there and stink there until

you have the courage to deal with it. But I know you won't, because

this is a government that proves Orwell was right. You are 1984

personified in those benches, and the biggest thing you fear is the

truth.

MR. STRACHAN: As one who spends an awful lot of time —

probably an inordinate amount of time — listening to people, I always

take great delight when I do get the opportunity to address this House.

First of all, let me commend the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, or

whoever is behind the "best blooming city" promotion, for a job well

done. I guess if anything does, that probably does speak to employment

in the tourist industry in our province. As I speak against the

amendment that is before us, I think that should be brought to mind. In

fact we do have a very active tourist industry in our province,

complemented, of course, by our government initiatives. I'm proud to

see the House displayed and looking so nice and colourful today with

the flowers — whatever they are; I'm not much of a horticulturist. As

my friend from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said: "A chrysanthemum by any

other name would be easier to spell."

AN HON. MEMBER: Daffodils.

MR. STRACHAN: Is that what they are? They're beautiful.

MS. SANFORD: Why don't you talk about the ombudsman?

MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm going to.... I thought I might speak to the amendment. Would that be in order? It's what's before us right now.

The motion was that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair, and so on

and so forth, and then a reasoned amendment follows, of course:

"...but this House regrets that, in the opinion of the

House, the Minister of Finance" — there should be a "has" there — "by

his failure to even mention, much less address, the most obvious

problems of record unemployment, has denied" — and that's the improper

third person singular — "many of our citizens the right to participate

in our society and therefore condemned them to a life of subsistence."

I think at the outset we can say there's a clear lack of reason to

that reasoned amendment, and obviously some of our friends opposite who

have been in the teaching profession didn't draft this, because the

sentence is rather awkward in terms of verb placement.

I thought what I'd talk about first is one particular clause in the

sentence which says: "...denied many of our citizens the right to

participate in our society." That is interesting because I really have

to question who is being denied what. I reckon what my friend from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) said this morning: "How about truck

loggers being denied work? How about IWA members who are being denied

the right to participate?" And what societal participation is being

denied by the budget address? How about closed-shop unions? Do they

deny the right for all to participate? How about marketing boards,

which is something about which I guess we could go on forever? That

clearly to me is something that denies the right for everyone to

participate.

MR. ROSE: Harvey will be after you if you talk about marketing boards.

MR. STRACHAN: That's fine.

How about the right of a Nobel Peace Prize winner to participate in

a free and open democratic society, and address people who would pay

money to hear him? How about a political party in our province which is

apparently denying its members the right to a mail-in leadership

ballot? I really have to ask if that isn't denying citizens the right

to participate in society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you recommending that for Social Credit?

MR. STRACHAN: No, but I didn't draft the amendment, either —

that's the difference. I have even heard of something which might be

before the House right now that refuses one of our own members

participation in one of the parliamentary functions.

I say that the amendment simply won't wash. Clearly, the budget

speech in its entirety does address the economy of our province, and

therefore it does address the concerns of all in

[ Page 3517 ]

our province, particularly those who are facing

unemployment and would like to be employed. Our budget, our fiscal

blueprint, is a statement of recovery — and of recovery for those who

unfortunately at this time are unemployed, and I know there are many in

my area. I can assure you, hon. members on both sides of the house,

that it is difficult to talk to people who for one reason or another —

because of the provincial economy, the Canadian economy or the world

economy — are not employed at this time.

However, we had that employment. We had these opportunities to

develop as a province because we did participate in the world market,

because we did become full partners in the international sale of our

resources, whether they be wood, mineral or whatever. Our province grew

— particularly in my riding, in the part of the central interior where

I hail from — because they could participate. They could sell on the

world market and do a very good job, and they rose with that market.

Regrettably they have to fall with that market. However, the

alternative would have been to have never participated in that market

at all, and that, of course, would be unacceptable. If that were the

case then, hon. members, our province would probably be about one-third

of the population that it is now. We certainly wouldn't have enjoyed

the economic success that we have had in the last 20 years.

Speaking of the woods industry, I see further, increased initiatives

for silviculture in the budget. This is something that always affects

our part of the country. I don't think it's enough, and I'm sure many

people would agree with me. Nevertheless, it is there, and it really is

almost a doubling if we look at seedlings since 1976, when our

government was first elected. That is a record that I am proud of, and

one that I hope we will maintain and increase.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this budget document does

address employment, does address the economy of our province, and I

think it is most important that we agree with it. For that reason I

cannot accept the amendment of the opposition.

The most important thing we have done, I think — and this has been

clear to many citizens of our province, and this has happened since

February 1982 — is to see the wisdom of checking the growth and expense

and expansion of government. There is a very simple motive here. I

don't think it is all that political; I don't think it is all that

mercenary; I don't think it is all that cruel. It is simply to lower

the expense of government to the citizens of British Columbia and to,

in fact, lower taxes. Very few governments have ever campaigned on the

promise that they will lower taxes and then, when they were elected, in

fact gone about putting mechanisms in place that lower taxes. Our

government did that — much to the consternation of some quarters in

British Columbia, but it was done and it was done with great success.

It helped us be re-elected in May 1983. I think we are definitely on

the right track, and obviously the people of British Columbia agree

that that was the right move to take: to maintain government control of

government programs as much as we can, yet lower the expectation of

increased taxes; to put ourselves in a better position in terms of the

world, in terms of our neighbours, and to show to our trading partners

that we can control our expenses and keep our own house in order. This,

of course, is essential in our position as partner in a world economy.

[3:00]

We often talk about why the economy in B.C. declines so much. People

don't seem to realize how important the world market is to us. For

example, ten medium-sized sawmills in British Columbia could probably

supply the entire Canadian housing market for the foreseeable future.

Ten sawmills in British Columbia are not very many; as a matter of

fact, there are probably ten of that size just in my riding, Prince

George South, and the riding of Prince George North. If one looks at

that, and at the employment generated by the forest industry in our

province, one has to realize that without the international market we

in fact would have no product at all. We would have nowhere to sell our

product. We certainly couldn't enjoy the services and the benefits that

we have now if our revenue base were only ten medium-sized sawmills in

the province.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that no one likes to be in the position that

we're in; nevertheless, we're part of a world economy. It's important

that we recognize that. I make absolutely no apologies for the fact

that the lumber market is down a bit. The previous speaker alluded to

stumpage revenues but he did not take into account the stumpage

formula, which of course is based on average market value; and revenues

to the clown — Crown — a Freudian slip...

MR. ROSE: You were right the first time.

MR. STRACHAN: ...will decline. That is funny when you think about it.

Revenues will, of course, diminish as the price of that material

diminishes. That is the basis of the stumpage formula in British

Columbia: the average market value. If the previous speaker had been

aware of that, I think he wouldn't have made the statements that he

did. Nevertheless he made them, and with some sincerity, and we respect

his right to say that.

One of the interesting things in the budget that I would like to

deal with, which is of particular importance to me as a member from the

central interior is the BCR recapitalization. I would like to discuss

the amount and the timing of the debt retirement payment. The BCR, as

we all know, has long-term debt. I think a lot of that long-term debt

was incurred....

Well, it was incurred because of the Dease Lake extension. It was

incurred by the government of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition when they

were government. To be fair, it was incurred by the government before

that — the government of W.A.C. Bennett. So I'm not going to try to say

that either party, or either political philosophy, was totally squeaky

clean or totally right or wrong for that debt. Nevertheless it is

there, and it is something we had to address.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

It became clear to many of us who sat on the Crown corporations

reporting committee that we had to address that problem with the

British Columbia Railway. For one thing — and I don't think too many

people in this assembly would appreciate this, except maybe those of us

who did sit on the committee — the debt was tough on the morale of the

employees of the British Columbia Railway. As we spoke to their

officers, and as I spoke to people employed on the BCR property, it was

a cloud that hung over their heads. The media will always pick it up

and certain little words will appear. All of a sudden you get the

phrase "debt-ridden" associated with BCR, and every time the media or

anyone else talks about British Columbia Rail they say: "the

debt-ridden British Columbia Railway." Of course, this doesn't do much

to boost

[ Page 3518 ]

the morale of that property, nor of the people

employed on it. So just from a morale point of view this

recapitalization and, debt-retirement payment program makes an awful

lot of sense. I'm sure that members of this House who sat on that Crown

corporations committee would agree with me. Also, if anyone would take

the time to talk to employees of the railway, from the general manager

down to people working on the trains, they would agree that in fact it

is a good idea, because it is a morale booster. Certainly BCR deserves

a morale booster. They are one of the few operations — private sector

or public sector — that have in fact shown a consistent operating

profit in the last two or three years, and I would just like to point

that out. They had an operating profit of $3 million in 1981, and an

expected $37 million in 1983. Even during 1982, one of the toughest

years of our provincial economy, the British Columbia Railway managed

to show an operating profit. This is truly incredible when you consider

that the majority of their revenue comes from shipping lumber, and the

most serious decline we had in 1982 was a decline in lumber shipments.

So BCR are to be commended for the operating profit they have shown

over the last four years. I think this debt-retirement program and

recapitalization is quite in order.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's been said that in fact we're borrowing to pay off debt. Members

making that type of statement clearly haven't read the budget speech,

which on page 6 points out that debt repayment will come from the

resource revenue stabilization fund, and the new year will be one of

transition. In fact, the first allocation will go to repay British

Columbia Railway's historic debt. I think it is significant to clear up

that error which is in the minds of some people. It's not debt to pay

off debt; it's using revenue from the Crown to pay the British Columbia

Railway $470 million.

The other interesting factor is that we're not looking at a Hydro

dam, or something like that, which has a tremendous capital cost, but

in the case of BCR we're looking at a debt that is not a major item of

the Crown corporation, and it's not commercially supportable. Therefore

it is a continuing drain on the taxpayers and on the railroad. It

should also be recognized that even if this debt retirement had not

taken place, the government would not have provided an extra $474

million for other programs. The funding levels for government were set

well before consideration of the BCR debt-retirement program. So I

think it is significant. It is going to allow the British Columbia

Railway, already an excellent employer under excellent management — and

there we get back to the amendment and the concern about employment —

to grow and prosper and support a lot of people in my riding.

While I'm talking about railways, I'll also associate myself with

the comment of the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

A. Fraser), who spoke earlier today about the CNR. I am sure the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) will remember the 1977 recapitalization

of the CNR, and essentially what a morale-booster it was to that

property; also to Air Canada, although I can't speak so well of Air

Canada's operation since. The CNR people, with the recapitalization and

the Crow rate, and even before the Crow rate — as a matter of fact, I

think they jumped the gun in my riding on double-tracking and

construction before the Crow rate legislation — had become tremendous

builders. The minister indicated earlier how much money is being spent

and spoke of operations within my riding and also in the ridings of

Kamloops and Yale-Lillooet and all the way down the Canyon into

Vancouver and also up to Prince Rupert. It is literally hundreds of

millions of dollars. It's like a northeast coal project per year —

that's what the CNR is putting into our province. I think that is

commendable, and, of course, that all employs people. A lot of people

of British Columbia and all across Canada are being employed in that

program. We're looking at an increase of 600 employees for the railway

in the Prince George operating area. If we use any of the common

multipliers, we can extrapolate what that's going to do for the economy

of Prince George. There has been tremendous construction in Valemount

and down to Kamloops. There is construction from Prince George west out

to the port of Prince Rupert. Again it is a project triggered largely

by the northeast coal project.

So one has to conclude that CNR is becoming a very good employer in

our province. I would commend all their good works to you, hon.

members. I think you should spend some time in looking into what this

federal Crown corporation is doing with respect to development in

British Columbia. Last December I had the good fortune to go with the

minister to a double-tracking ceremony at a place called Henry House,

which is in my riding close to the Alberta border, and meet with the

CNR people and acknowledge their encouragement and interest in British

Columbia and in their railway, truly a magnificent project.

There were a few other things I'd like to speak about. We talk of

unemployed people, and, of course, that is regrettable. No one likes to

see those types of statistics, and that is what the amendment before us

is attempting to address. There is something that twigged me. I worked

for some years in the social services; I worked in a community college

and then for another employer who helped out people a little less

fortunate than the rest of us. The problem of welfare, GAIN and UIC has

always bothered me, and without trying to be crass or cold, I've always

considered that unemployment insurance probably ensures unemployment.

That's why I found it interesting, straightforward and upfront that the

Minister of Finance in the budget speech would say that several

amendments will be made to the GAIN program to improve benefits, and

that the government will reduce the chances of creating a permanent

group of unemployed persons and attracting potential recipients from

outside the province.

I think that's what has happened. People come to British Columbia

for a variety of reasons. Number one has been the economy, since 1979,

1980 and 1981, which showed our largest population increase. It was

substantial during those years, creating the housing problem of those

years. People come to British Columbia because of the weather,

particularly the lower mainland area and the Okanagan area. They come

to the north for job opportunities. But I am sure that many people do

come to this province, or at least are attracted to come to this

province, by the amount of money that is paid by the Ministry of Human

Resources and GAIN. One hates to deny any legitimate recipients their

proper share of what society can do for them. But clearly, when we hear

the figures, such as those mentioned by the second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) last week, that indicate that our

welfare payments are at least 20 percent higher than other provinces —

notably the province of Ontario, which is, of course, a very wealthy

province and has its own problems with unemployed people, and the

province of

[ Page 3519 ]

Manitoba, which is a province with a socialist government....

AN HON. MEMBER: A haven for socialists.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, I don't really think it's that much of a haven.

When we hear of those extremely high rates, I can applaud the

Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) for making that very brave statement and recognizing the fact

that we do have a problem here with people being attracted to our

province because of their potential ability to receive higher welfare

payments.

There was some mention made by the previous speaker of junkets —

juggernauts he called them — and the amount of money that's spent on

promoting and marketing our province to the world. It is interesting,

because during the election and since, and maybe even previously, it

occurred to me that even industry people I talked to who might not

share my political philosophy — IWA members, PPWC people — had to

recognize that our government had demonstrated in the last six or seven

years that we did have the ability to market B.C. products and market

them well, and probably better than any other government or any

alternative form of government in the province. This seemed to come out

loud and clear, and quite a few of the members of our government to

whom I have talked have agreed with that, particularly members who come

from the resource areas of the province.

Therefore I have to take exception when I hear the criticism of the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister

of Finance, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), the Premier

and other members of cabinet that they should not be going and telling

the world about British Columbia and what we have to sell. One of the

most interesting things, if you like Chinese food, was the announcement

by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that we have

a market for some of our garbage hardwoods — poplar and that type of

thing — in the Korean chopstick market. That's just tremendous. If we

can get everybody in North America, South America and the rest of the

world eating Chinese food with Korean chopsticks using B.C. poplar,

which is a real garbage wood to begin with, then we'll have something

going. It's little initiatives like that — and, of course, the bigger

ones such as northeast coal and some other coal properties that have

been developed and other mineral sales — that really speak well for our

province and our government's ability to market the resources of our

province.

MR. ROSE: What about fiddlesticks? You should market those.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm trying.

MR. ROSE: Toothpicks.

[3:15]

MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, that's a big product of Quebec — the Eddy company....

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: In Ottawa? Toothpicks? Right, toothpicks. I prefer dental floss myself, but chacun a son gout.

In any event, I do take umbrage when I hear cabinet ministers

criticized for trying to represent B.C. and trying to sell the products

on which we are so dependent. There is just no question about that.

Without the world market — the United States market, the Pacific Rim

market, the European market — we'd be dead in the water, and we all

know it. Some of the members opposite, of course, have recognized that.

We should have recognized that for years. This is not the Monroe

doctrine in British Columbia — not by any means. We can't live in

isolation. We have to be a world partner, we have to participate and we

have to make it known that we're prepared to participate.

It was interesting to hear some of the tours criticized by members

opposite, particularly the last speaker: everybody's going out and

having a good time. I guess they'd referred to press releases, one of

which I have right here. When he was in New York the Premier went to

see a Broadway play called Seesaw . which was advertised as a "breezy, brassy, sexy musical," and spent one day doing business and another day seeing Swan Lake .

Another night the Premier attended a Broadway play and then went to a

restaurant and then came home. The Premier went to London....

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: I'll get to that. The Premier went to London

and met some aircraft people and automotive manufacturing people in

England. I don't see any sign of that industry here now, but obviously

the Premier went with the best intentions for the province in mind. In

fact, he returned empty-handed after doing some sightseeing in London.

The list goes on and on. I understand that other members might want to

use this. The dates of all these press releases are in 1973-74, so I

presume people know which Premier I'm referring to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the same guy who was complaining here a while ago?

MR. STRACHAN: It appears to be, although I do notice that in

the bills for the Daimler hire company they've spelled his name wrong —

it’s just one "t."

In any event. I'm not knocking the current Leader of the Opposition

and the Premier for that type of endeavour. We are in the world market.

He might not have done the right thing. That's not for me to say. I

wasn't there in 1973 and 1974. I find it curious that on some occasions

back-bench members were taken on world trips, but if the Premier of the

day wanted to do that, that's his style, and I guess one has to accept

it; he was the Premier. Let's face it, dear friends, if we're going to

throw stones at each other because of the action of one government,

remember you've been in the glass house before, so please be careful.

Remember, for goodness' sake, before you start criticizing the

initiative of this cabinet, that that's something they should be doing.

Without that contact with the world, British Columbia cannot exist. You

know the list of visits of the Premier of the day in 1973, 1974 and

1975 goes on and on. We have a great file here, and I understand other

members might use it. But it's good business to get out and sell. It's

good business to represent the province. We certainly need it. We need

it even more now with Expo 86 coming on. I would commend it all to you.

[ Page 3520 ]

There's one more thing. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly)

was inquiring this morning about the youth employment program, and had

it confused with the student employment program, which at that point

wasn't released. Just briefly I'll speak to the youth employment

program. The program is for youth, not just for students only, but for

anyone from the age of 15 to, I believe, 24. It gives the young

unemployed person a calling-card. That person searches out an employer

company and says, "Hi, I'm Bob," and presents this calling-card. He

presents this to the employer and demonstrates to the employer how the

government will participate in having that young person employed. The

secret of success here is the fact that it takes the young unemployed

person's initiative to start the whole thing going. That person has to

seek out the employer, seek out the job that he or she may wish to do

and thinks he could be successful at. That's the magic. That's the

secret, I believe, to that employment. I don't think you can deny that.

I don't really know why you have such concern, although I must admit

that in listening this morning to the member for Burnaby North, who

didn't seem to know much about the program.... Maybe you haven't read

all that much about it and haven't seen the press releases yet. So

maybe we should wait for a while until the members have had a chance to

read the press releases and the accompanying material. They will then

understand what the program is all about. It's a superb program, with

$10 million in it. It should help about 85,000 students from April 2

until sometime in September. I forget the closing date. It has the

magic and the appeal to me of putting the initiative on the unemployed

person who will go out and ask for that job and say: "Here I am. I

think it's a good idea for you to employ me. Here's how the government

can participate." I think that's going to be impressive to a

prospective employer. Again, the initiative will be on the young person

to instigate it.

We also have a new program announced today by the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) — in speaking further to the amendment, which of

course I am — to help students. This is specifically for students. It's

an initiative program. The idea is to create your own job. It says: "Be

your own boss this summer." It's excellent as well. It's called the

student venture capital program of B.C. The government will offer

interest-free loans of up to $2,000 to students who wish to plan and

operate their own small business. Those will be interest-fee from April

1, 1984, to the repayment deadline of October 1, 1984. Again, it's a

great idea to become your own capitalist — I love it.

MR. ROSE: What if he loses the money?

MR. STRACHAN: That's the way it goes, Mr. Member. I'm sure

you'll appreciate, Mr. Member, that life is like a song: you're only as

good as your last note. You can appreciate that.

It does give students the initiative to get out and do their own

thing and be themselves and not have to rely on handouts. I think it's

a great program, and also the youth employment program that's offered.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I've done enough. I was told by the Whip

to leap into the breach and take up some time. I've certainly had a

great time. As you can tell, I don't get to speak very much. It's

probably obvious why they don't let me speak that much, but I've had a

good time being here.

1 was talking to my good friend from Atlin. He had a suggestion last

week of what his old friend Bob would do with the Speech from the

Throne, and he is probably going to tell us — or has told us — that his

old friend Bob is going to do the same thing with the budget speech.

The member for Atlin described to us a personal use that his old friend

Bob has for the speech, but I would recommend one thing to all people,

and two things to Bob. Firstly, read the budget address. It's a very

good address. It does answer all of the questions that are posed in the

amendment, and it's superb. That's the first thing old Bob should do

before he uses this budget speech for whatever he might want to use it

for. The second thing he should do is take out the staples. With that,

I'll thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been accused in

this House, on frequent occasions lately, of not saying anything about

the Chemainus mill. I deliberately left this particular item out when I

was speaking in the budget debate, because I felt that it more properly

belonged under the amendment, which talks about employment. I didn't

want to be accused of being tedious and repetitious, so I have left the

Chemainus mill to be dealt with in this particular debate.

I have been accused of not being appreciative of the fact that

MacMillan Bloedel has finally decided to build a mill in the Chemainus

area.

MR. REID: Isn't that good?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Member, I'm pleased. I was certainly

pleased when Mr. Moonen was kind enough to immediately bring the press

release to me in my office so I would have some advance notice that

this was happening, and I certainly expressed my appreciation to Mr.

Moonen at that time.

I was accosted in the hall by the Minister of Forests, who was

apparently trying to take some of the credit, and I don't know whether

or not any credit is due to him. The press release from MacMillan

Bloedel indicated that this was not in response to any political

pressure; it was purely an economic decision. Be that as it may, if the

fact that the Minister of Forests had threatened "use it or lose it"

had any bearing on it, then I appreciate that.

In my own constituency, the Socred candidate who ran against me has

been trying to take all the credit to himself, and that's on his head.

As far as I'm concerned, some of my constituents are telling me that

I've had something to do with it, and if I have, that's good. But I

don't intend to take the credit for being the person responsible. I

think it was a MacMillan Bloedel decision, and on that basis I think it

indicates that our forest industry is, in fact, in the hands of

corporations like MacMillan Bloedel. The decisions that affect the

livelihood of the people who live in my constituency are in the hands

of the MacMillan Bloedels of this province.

The new mill, Mr. Speaker, employs 130 people. It will be built in a

period of just over a year. The productivity will be three times as

great per man-hour as the old mill. Instead of employing some 550 to

600 people, it's only going to employ 130.

Interjection.

[ Page 3521 ]

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, better 130 than none, but better the whole 600.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole problem of

employment is a very major and extensive problem. We have had this

demonstrated in living colour in Cowichan-Malahat as a result of the

Chemainus mill. We have had demonstrated to us in no uncertain terms

the impact of technological change on the workers in British Columbia.

We have had demonstrated to us in no uncertain terms that the matter of

full employment, or anything close to full employment, in today's

technological age is not a matter for band-aid measures. It's a matter

for a much deeper look, a revised approach, if we are going to provide

jobs for people; if we are, in fact, going to get some semblance of

fair distribution of wealth as a result of the natural resources that

we have in this province and this country.

[3:30]

Not too long ago a report was done by the federal Departments of

Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion. It was an

advisory committee on the forest industry. This is an interim report.

The recommendations covered six broad subjects, but there were two aims

to those recommendations. The first one was to strengthen the ability

of Canada's forest products companies to compete around the world,

attract investment and create jobs and income for Canadians. The other

was to assist in easing the impact of economic change on people and

communities so that the burden of change is borne fairly and is

tolerable. In looking at that economic change, they were looking at

technological advancement and how we deal with it. Nobody is going to

suggest that we should be using an old crosscut saw to cut trees down

or that we should be using an old mechanical-type sawmill if in fact

the technology is there to do it in an easier way. But when we make

those changes, we must recognize that we have a responsibility to

ensure that social advancement keeps pace with the technological

change, and that we do not just introduce technological change without

considering the effect that change has on our human resource. That's

the problem facing us today around the world, in Canada and in British

Columbia.

This interim report from this advisory committee indicates that the

problem is urgent and that the solutions must involve all levels:

government, management and labour. It goes on to say that it is urgent

because employment losses in the past two years in many instances are

not temporary but permanent. Furthermore, it frequently involves

permanent closures of mills, in this instance, that are not

competitive. If there is a rebuild it is, like the Chemainus mill, a

mill that employs fewer people. We still have that population there and

we have to deal with that population.

We have to decide how we are to best accommodate the need for jobs.

I think that people on all sides of this House would agree that the

answer is not unemployment insurance or social assistance. That is a

heavy burden on everyone: it's a heavy burden on the taxpayers, and

it's an extremely heavy burden on the people forced into the position

of being a recipient of handouts from other people within the social

structure.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's degrading.

MRS. WALLACE: It's very degrading.

So that's the situation we're facing. This report is fairly

in-depth. It points out that there is less and less need for the old

skills but more and more need for the new skills — I'll deal with that

later, with another reference. It indicates that we have to think, when

we're spending public moneys to modernize industry, that that should be

accompanied by firm financial commitments to workers adversely affected

by the change. More specifically, a portion of public funds should be

assigned to the protection of those workers. That is something we're

not doing, something we're not taking into account. We're doing things

like severance pay, as this report includes, and certainly the workers

at Chemainus got their severance pay. They got it because they had a

good strong union contract that provided for that, and it was greater

than the severance pay allowed under the laws of Canada, which is where

it's covered.

This is a problem we are not facing up to. We are somehow thinking

that we can go for technological change, that we can move in that

direction, bringing in all these new and innovative things, that we can

improve our man-hour productivity, and that we don't need to worry

about the human consequences. I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, and

to this Legislature, that society cannot continue to function if we

continue to remove from the people of this province and this country

the opportunity to earn their own living. That is in effect what

technological change is doing.

The book I have here is fairly new: Green-Gold ,

by Patricia Marchak, who is with the faculty of forestry at UBC. She

deals with the forest industry in some great depth. I just want to draw

to the House's attention the employment-versus-productivity levels in

three sectors of the forest industry — pulp mills, sawmills and logging

— over the last decade or more, beginning back in 1963, actually. She

has some very effective and revealing graphs in the book.

Relative to pulp mills, the graphs indicate that between 1963 and

1978 the production volume in pulp mills in British Columbia increased

120 percent. Over a period of some seven years, from 1963 to 1970,

salaried workers increased approximately 110 percent, hourly workers

over the period 1963 to 1978 increased approximately 70 percent. That's

a 120 percent increase in production volume with only a 70 percent

increase in hourly workers, and a slightly lower increase in man-hours

actually paid to those hourly workers. In the sawmills the relationship

was similar. They increased their production volume between 1961 and

1978 by something in excess of 100 percent — approximately 105 to — 110

percent. At the same time, their salaried workers increased about 20

percent and hourly workers about the same. So that's a 110 percent

increase in volume production in the sawmills, with only a 20 percent

increase in hourly workers.

This indicates to me, Mr. speaker — and I think it should indicate

to you and to the members of this Legislature — that when we began

building pulp mills, our technology was more advanced, so we only have

a discrepancy of 120 percent increase in volume production over that

period, with a 70 percent increase in the hourly workers. But when it

came to sawmills, in that period we were really getting into some

technological advancement, as opposed to mechanical mills; we were

going into highly technical sawmills where we saw a volume increase of

over 100 percent, with only a 20 percent increase in hourly workers.

That's what technology does. We're talking about people: workers with

homes, wives and families to support; single parents — a lot of women

work in those sawmills. But there are no jobs for them anymore.

When we move into the logging industry, we find an interesting thing there too. The production volume increased

[ Page 3522 ]

from 1963 to 1978 by approximately 75 percent. At

the same time salaried workers increased about 55-60 percent and hourly

workers again only 25 percent. Again, more technological advancement,

more high capital investment; less requirement for human resource, less

requirement for workers, less employment.

Dr. Marchak goes on to talk about the fact that there is a change in

requirement: that there is no longer the need for labourers and less

skilled people in very specific areas; that the skills required to

operate and maintain these very sophisticated and expensive pieces of

equipment are very specialized. So it would seem to me that one of the

things that we could do that would help to a very small degree to

alleviate the problem of the people who are put out of work is to

ensure that we have an adequate training facility, that we train people

to be able to do those highly skilled jobs. That will help some, but

based on the statistics in this book, it's not going to help very much,

because 30 percent of the people who worked in pulp mills over that

period of some 13, 14, or 15 years are no longer required. Some 80

percent of the people who worked in sawmills and 75 percent of the

people who worked in the logging industry, are no longer required. We

have that much of a decrease in the percentage of those particular

occupations.

The answer is not just more technological advancement or change. The

answer has to be not just a new mill in Chemainus with 130 employees

that will produce a lot more lumber with a lot less manpower. It is not

just the rebuilding of the Fraser mills in Coquitlam, a $48 million

facility packed with computer-controlled equipment. The new mill has

the same capacity as the old, but it will use fewer logs and will

require only half the number of workers — a 50 percent reduction of

workers in that particular mill. The answer is not just increased

technology in our forest industry.

I noted in the newspaper today that a million dollars has been

granted to an organization at UBC for advanced studies in forest

economics and policy, under the direction of Peter Pearse, and I

certainly have a lot of respect for Peter Pearse. This study is to

review technological change. The research emphasis will be on the

economics and economic analysis. They will use new technicians and

better policies to recapture our competitive edge. Also there will be a

high degree of collaboration with industry, government and other

academics. Fine, except what happens to the people whom that replaces?

The more technological advancement that you bring in — and granted, you

must bring it in if you're going to remain competitive and if you're

going to market outside our shores — the more people are going to be

unemployed.

[3:45]

I suggest that the budget has completely ignored this particular

issue. I'm using the forest industry as an example. It extends much

further than that; it extends to every facet of our society. Certainly

in the forest industry, which is our major concern here in this

province, we are facing something that I would term a catastrophe. The

figures are astounding, to say the least. We can't just hide our heads

in the sand and pretend that the problem is going to go away. We have

to start looking at some alternatives. We have to start looking at some

better way to distribute income. We have to start looking at some other

forms of industry and employment, because if we don't do that, we're

going to find that our whole society is in a state of decay.

Certainly it's not fair to expect families to exist on social

assistance. What is an average family? A family of four receives

$10,440 a year on income assistance in British Columbia. Recently

StatsCan came up with the poverty levels for a family of four. They

tell us that for a family of four to live in an area that has a

population of 500,000 or more, it costs $19,397 to live above the

poverty level. In British Columbia you get $10,440 on social

assistance. If you live in an area with a population of 100,000 to

499,999, the next densely populated bracket, it costs a family of four

$18,434. In an area where there are 30,000 to 100,000 people, it costs

$17,233 just to subsist on the poverty line. With a population of less

than 30,000, still urban, it costs $16,030. If you happen to be lucky

enough to live in a rural area, the cost is $14,268 — some $4,000 more

than you get if you're on social assistance.

Apart from the burden to the taxpayers of paying out that income

assistance is the fact that you are relegating a great segment of your

society to live in poverty. What is the additional cost of that? In

addition there is the cost of health care, because there is

discouragement. People become disheartened. It's all well and good to

say: "Well, why don't you go out and look for a job?" If there are no

jobs there, if through technological change we have eliminated jobs and

haven't provided alternative jobs, then there's no point in telling

people to go and look for work. It becomes the syndrome of the dole, as

happened during the thirties in England. We don't want that in British

Columbia. I don't want that in British Columbia; I want people to have

the opportunity to work. If they are going to have the opportunity to

work, then it is incumbent upon us as legislators to find a way to

provide jobs. We have to look at alternatives.

One of the first steps is to become much more heavily involved in

research and development, not just million-dollar grants to study

technological change to put more people out of work. The first time

that that cycle became evident to me was when the federal government

started making tax concession grants to major corporations — mostly in

eastern Canada — who immediately used that money to modernize their

plants to put more people out of work. The intent of those grants was

to increase employment. In actuality there was no employment created.

It simply put people out of work, because that's what the money was

spent for.

We're into a real tech-change revolution; it's akin to the

industrial revolution many centuries ago. We have to have the courage

to face that and come up with some social programs that will provide

fulfilment. We should be encouraging more and more educational

opportunities to train for those highly skilled jobs that both the

federal interim report and Dr. Marchuk talk about. We should also be

ensuring that people have an opportunity to get more involved in what I

like to call lifestyle education programs — some people call them

"frills." As we continue down this road of technological change, we are

going to find that more and more people are working less and less

hours, and they are going to have more and more leisure time. Two major

challenges face society today. Firstly, how do you distribute the

return from the wealth of the country to ensure that all those people

have an opportunity to a fair share of that return from that natural

resource? The second problem that we must face is ensuring that people

have an opportunity to broaden their interests, to be encouraged to

participate in more cultural, aesthetic, sports and recreation

activities — in order to ensure that leisure time does not just become

a burden on people's hands, but becomes a valuable contributor towards

our society generally and towards our economic recovery in the long

haul. If

[ Page 3523 ]

we don't go that way, we are doomed to failure,

because we cannot become a nation and a province of haves and

have-nots. The load is too heavy for the haves and too onerous for the

have-nots.

MR. MICHAEL: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in

the House to speak against the amendment. I will be supporting the

motion to endorse the Finance minister's budget.

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the opposition — the criticism and

the complaints and the doom and gloom and the bad news — I am

surprised, with all of the good things going on in British Columbia and

all of the good things on the horizon in British Columbia, that all we

hear from the opposition is doom and gloom. I have taken a bit of

trouble to go through some of the past issues of some of the daily

papers and to pick out some of the announcements of expansions that are

on the horizon in British Columbia.

As an example, in a recent

article in the Vancouver Sun the

Tokyu Corporation of Japan says that the $150 million it will spend to

build a hotel and office space at Canada Harbour Place is only the

beginning of the conglomerate's investment in B.C. "Thomas Arai,

president of Tokyu Hotels International, a subsidiary of Tokyu, said in

an interview the company will likely move into commercial real estate

and possibly residential housing development after the hotel is

completed." We never hear news like that coming from the mouths of the

opposition. It is just doom and gloom.

Here's another article, Mr. Speaker — "Oil Struck in B.C.'s North."

"Gulf Canada Resources Inc. has made a promising oil

strike in the far northeast of the province, giving B.C.'s beleaguered

exploration industry a shot in the arm. The company has put five rigs

to work in the d'Easum area near the Helmut gas field, 120 km northeast

of Fort Nelson, following on an initial wildcat drilled in the area

last winter, which flowed good quality oil from a depth of around 600

metres at the rate of 173 barrels a day. According to Gulf, 7 of the 20

followup wells completed since the 1984 drilling season began in

December have flowed oil, with seven dry holes, while testing of the

remainder is yet to be finished. However, industry sources say that

three of the holes still being tested have produced oil and a fourth

yielded gas."

I consider that good news. It is something that is happening in our

own province — a little bit of light on the horizon. But when, Mr.

Speaker, do we hear news such as that? How much have we heard, other

than criticism, from the opposition regarding the plans of Alcan for

two smelters in the central and northwestern areas of British Columbia?

The first phase alone would be worth in the neighbourhood of $1 billion

in capital construction. The first phase calls for a capacity of

171,000 tonnes a year. I have not heard a word of encouragement or

bright lights from the opposition regarding this. Yet we are looking at

600 construction jobs and 750 permanent jobs in the Vanderhoof area —

but not a word from the opposition on areas such as that.

Have we heard any mention at all about the gas plant that is planned for British Columbia?

Another

article says:

"B.C.'s ailing northeastern oil patch will get a $65

million boost if PetroCan Inc. and Westcoast Transmission go ahead with the

plan to build a new natural gas processing plant near Fort St. John. The companies

yesterday filed preliminary notice with the B.C. Energy ministry of a plan to

build a new plant in Taylor to extract liquids from 10.5 million cubic metres

a day of natural gas flowing through the west coast trunk gas line."

If the project goes ahead, it will provide jobs for about 150

construction workers from late this year until the fall of '85, plus 33

permanent jobs in Taylor and Kamloops. But there's no mention of that;

just doom and gloom and how bad things are.

[4:00]

Expo 86. How much have we heard about the fact that this project

alone is going to provide 56,000 person-years of employment and

generate from $2 billion to $3 billion in economic activity? It's

projected that the fair will draw 15 million visits; that on any given

day there will be more than 200,000 people on-site, entertained by

13,000 performances and assisted by 14,000 staff. That's jobs. That's

action. That's planning. That's progress. Those are the kinds of things

I think we should be hearing more of from the opposition, rather than

doom and gloom all the time,

I find it interesting looking over the papers and listening to the

opposition talk about the budget and how badly in debt we are, yet I

see some of their friends had a big conference here in the last little

while. They're telling us that things aren’t really that bad in British

Columbia. In the Vancouver Sun . February 25, it says: "UBC

economics professor Robert Allen said he is convinced B.C. is not in

nearly as much debt as Finance minister Hugh Curtis wants everyone to

believe." That's doesn't compare very well with what we hear from the

NDP financial critic. It doesn't match very well. does it? The

article

goes on, quoting Professor Allen: "'B.C. has one of the highest

investment rates in the world,' he said, adding that only four

industrialized nations have a higher percentage of foreign investment

than British Columbia." I find that very interesting.

A headline says: "B.C. Deficit Overstated." What have we ever heard

from the Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), about

this kind of material? Doom and gloom is all we hear from them.

MR. MITCHELL: Read the whole article.

MR. MICHAEL: I've read the whole article, Mr. Member. If you

want to read the whole

article into the record, you go right ahead. I'm

taking my turn in the House. If you wish to speak, you will have

adequate time to do so, I'm sure.

When have we heard anything about the wonderful job that this

government assisted in in getting the Crow rate through parliament in

Ottawa, taking a very strong position in the early stages and giving a

lot of encouragement to those who were fighting for that Crow rate

amendment — those much-needed amendments — to give British Columbia the

tremendous injection of hundreds of millions of dollars in construction

that we are now starting to enjoy already in the early part of 1984?

We'll see much more of that in the next few months.

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't choose to take my seat without mentioning

what my friend from New Westminster would call the travesty in the

province of British Columbia with the pulp negotiations and the

unfortunate strike-lockout situation that we have at the current time.

I think we in this House are going to have to have a serious look at

the entire forest-

[ Page 3524 ]

product negotiating structure sometime over the

next year or 18 months. It saddens me that with times as tough as they

are in British Columbia, with the wages these people are receiving,

with the benefits they are receiving, they have chosen to force a

confrontation at this point in time, costing the economy of this

province far in excess of $10 million a day in lost wages and

production. The ancillary effects of this reach out to every community

in the province of British Columbia. We have woodworkers unemployed. We

have people tightening up in their spending, being more cautious;

people who aren't adding on that extra staff member, because of the

serious situation in the province of British Columbia.

I think we're going to have to have a very serious look at the

collective bargaining procedure and structure in the forest industry

over the next year or 18 months. We should be looking, perhaps, at the

formation of some type of bargaining council, a structure very similar

to what they have in the shipbuilding industry, the construction

industry and B.C. Rail, where the unions are required to bargain

jointly and the membership in that industry either all vote on settling

or all vote on striking. As I said, I would not like to take my seat

without having commented on that. That is a very unfortunate occurrence

at this particular point of British Columbia's economic recovery.

In conclusion, I would like to once again compliment the Minister of

Finance for the excellent budget that he's brought out. I think we are

within a stone's throw of a balanced budget in British Columbia. That

will put British Columbia firmly on the road to recovery, with a solid

future for our children and our children's children.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting when you rise to debate, and

you look around the House and realize that we're all British Columbians

and in many cases we come from the same walks of life. I must say that

we do have philosophical differences. I listened to the last speaker's

kind of groveling attitude that we have to look at a job — the right to

participate in the development of this country — as something for which

we can thank someone from Japan or some other country or someone who

has money and will invest and give us the opportunity to work and to

participate in our economy. I feel ashamed at times that I share the

same House with people with that other philosophy.

I think that a lot of people who have entered into this debate have

failed to read the amendment we are debating. I would like to refresh

your memory, Mr. Speaker, because I know you've been out of the chair

and participated in other activities. I'd like to read what the

amendment says: "that this House regrets that in the opinion of the

House the hon. Minister of Finance, by his failure to even mention,

much less address, the most obvious problem of record unemployment, has

denied many of our citizens the right to participate in our society and

has thereby condemned them to a life of subsistence."

I say, and say proudly, that I feel every one of us in British Columbia has

a right to a job. I believe that every one of us has a responsibility to participate

in the production of all the goods and services we enjoy. I find it shocking

that we are not accepting our responsibility, and that we are allowing something

to continue that didn't just happen since the last election or since the

last budget. When you go back and study the financial journals of this province

and of this country, you see that the depression we're in today, and the

high unemployment, was predicted. I have a headline here — I know I can't

hold it up for the House to see, but I'll show it to you — from the Financial

Post of September 20, 1982. It says: "Jobless Rate Will Rise and Stay High.

Many Lost Jobs Gone Forever." It goes on to say that this is going to go

on into the eighties.

Where this government stands condemned, especially since we have to

take our particular problems to the Minister of Finance, as we are in

his debate, is that the government, through the Minister of Finance,

failed to take any action to plan ahead to allow the youth of our

province to be able to get into a workforce where they can have a

chance to cam a living and learn a trade.

I'd like to read a letter into the record, Mr. Speaker. It was from

a young lad who was unemployed and, although he didn't have the little

blue Bobcards this government is going to issue, for the last six or

eight months he has been out looking day after day for jobs. He has

taken every type of short-term employment, all at minimum wages.

Because this lad is young he does have some hope, and because he has a

desire to be a mechanic he entered himself into a heavy-duty mechanics

course, at his own expense — or, I believe, at his parents' expense —

and he thought while he was on unemployment he would try to upgrade his

skills. I'd like to read what he says:

"I have been unemployed for some months now. I have

been cut off unemployment because the umpire, board of appeals, etc.

felt I am sort of a leech. This is not true. I am pursuing diligently,

even desperately, the difficult task of finding work. I'm only running

into dead ends everywhere. I will take any job anywhere, anytime.

Eventually I want to be a mechanic. The board of review seems to have

seized on this to suggest I am picky about the jobs I will take. They

say I want more than minimum wage. I ask you: who doesn't? I have

worked at less than minimum wage at most of the tasks I have found

since I lost my job. It is the only work I can find. I took the

attitude that maybe those small jobs might lead to something better,

but unfortunately they did not. They did not last. I want a job that is

permanent and full-time. This is my idea of a job.

"The board of review seems to think, because of this,

that I will not take other jobs. This is untrue. My record speaks for

itself. A review of my report cards will show I take any job I can get.

I am going to school to try to improve my chances of getting a job.

What is wrong with that? I asked Manpower to sponsor me, but they

refused. They said that they would add my name to the waiting list. The

waiting list is four years long. The course is being cut permanently in

about five months, so I took the course anyway on my own initiative. It

is a lot of money, but I am desperate for a job, and in today's job

market it seems my chances are getting worse and worse. I am an

insulted person. If Manpower phoned me up and said they had a job, I

would not hesitate to take it."

This is what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker. We have people who are

unemployed and who want to learn a trade. Instead of giving out blue

cards to run around with, they should take the opportunity and time to

push the federal government to allow those who are on unemployment to

go out and learn a trade to

[ Page 3525 ]

upgrade themselves, and while they are taking that

schooling, they should not be punished and held in ridicule and allowed

to drift along. It seems it's better to walk the streets and get into

trouble than it is to go out and learn a trade. I say to the Minister

of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to tackle the

problem of unemployment, we have to tackle it on many fronts. We just

can't have simple projects and simple answers and think that these

particular projects are going to solve the unemployment problem. the

lack of job opportunities. It's going to have to be tackled on many

fronts.

I don't think this government has learned anything from history.

When the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) was saying that we in the NDP do not learn from history, I know

he was repeating a speech he had made once before. If you are not going

to read history, you will make the same mistakes that those in the past

have made. I say this government is making the same mistakes as it has

in the past.

I was reading an

article here from the Financial Post dealing

with government seeming to want to repeat their previous mistakes. The

article goes on: "In their own unique ways, our federal and provincial

governments are doing the Herbert Hoover and Simon Fraser Tolmie

routines 50 years later and believing in them just as fervently." Let's

go back to 1932 when the Premier of this province set up the Kidd

Committee. It was a committee of businessmen who were going to study

the problems of the government and all the unemployment and the high

cost of government. This was the committee dominated by the business

community. What were their recommendations? This was made 50 years ago.

They recommended that we cut back on the civil servants, cut wages and

lay more people off. Today we are doing exactly the same thing. Only

now it's not the Kidd Committee, it's the Fraser Institute, another

committee dominated solely by the business community of this province

and financed in large part by the multinational corporations, They

start right at their biases and say that if we're going to solve the

economic problems of inflation and wages, we've got to cut back from

where we are today. That never worked 50 years ago, and it won't work

today. I believe that if we are going to do anything that's going to

accomplish what British Columbians want — to create more employment —

we must look to creating more job opportunities.

[4:15]

I'd like to bring to the attention of you, Mr. Speaker, and to the

House, how other governments in the western world have looked at

diversifying their economy, to improving their competitiveness in the

world market and to creating employment for their citizens. It is

interesting that we in greater Victoria have something like 16 percent

unemployment, while in Sweden they thought they had a disaster when

unemployment rose to 4 percent. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that in

any winter, in the best of times, up in Prince George you've had

unemployment get much below 4 percent. But 4 percent to people who have

been used to working all their lives was high. They didn't take the

position of borrowing money. I've said time after time in the House

that we will never get out of the economic problems we have solely by

borrowing money. The debt is going to be the millstone around our neck

that is going to kill our whole economy — it is going to kill the

economy of the western world.

In Sweden right after the election the Prime Minister said that he

planned to call together representatives of labour, industry and other

political parties for general economic talks, including how to go about

implementing controversial wage-earner investment funds. The party and

the trade union movement are committed to a system of regional

investment funds that would be financed, in part, by a levy on

industrial profits. These funds would provide a new investment capital

to promising Swedish companies, and would represent an alternative to

high wage increases next year. Both labour and management realize that

to be competitive they must modernize their industry, diversify their

job markets and create the jobs.

If we're going to do it, we have to work together. We have to work

with the trade union movement and the business communities. We must

take into consideration the churches and the community leaders of the

province, and we must get together and do something positive. I call on

this government — through you, Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Minister of

Finance or the Premier is not here — to set up a committee of

businessmen, trade union leaders and church and active community

leaders to look at bringing in a new method of financing and

diversifying our economy and creating the jobs that this amendment to

the budget is calling for. It is important that we don't wait until a

disaster happens. This is what this province has done over the hundreds

of years it has been in existence. It waits until there is a disaster,

such as unemployment and a depression, before making changes.

The previous speaker, my colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), was discussing the mill that they were building in the

Ladysmith area. That mill is being built for 30 or 40 years. The new

technology to phase that mill in has been available for 10 years that I

know of. A similar mill was built in the Sooke area of my riding with

new technology back in 1974-75. The upgrading of the new technology

that is needed to keep our mills competitive has been available. If

Mac-Blo, who I believe are the owners of the company, had been

responsible, socially conscious corporate citizens. the plans for that

particular changeover would have been phased in starting five or ten

years ago. They should never wait until a community the size of

Ladysmith comes to the brink of a financial disaster, because all of a

sudden they decide that that particular facility is outdated and

antiquated.

If a company is going to use the technology that is available, they

must phase that technology into the present industry and use that new

technology to broaden the product that they are producing — in the case

of Ladysmith, lumber. They must use the manpower available, the people

who are living there, and bring in the new industries that are needed.

These industries today can be brought in with the new technology. We

are going to start ahead of any other particular company in that field,

because we are starting with a new workforce and new material. We can

use the most up-to-date technology. But our government — I say our

government, because as a citizen of British Columbia it is my

government too, though I philosophically disagree with them — must give

some leadership to the business community. We cannot continue to go on

this boom and bust philosophy, where we have to wait until there is a

disaster and then instead of hiring 600 or 700 people in the community,

we tease them by hiring 150. I know those 150 will be happy to go back

to work. But others, who are financially broken, losing their homes,

and who haven't had a chance to get re-established in another job in

that area, have moved away to look for jobs in other parts of the

province. I don't think we should wait for that. I don't

[ Page 3526 ]

think that we in the opposition can allow the government to continue not facing the problems as they come along.

I think we had one of the best opportunities to create jobs in 1979

when the government followed Friedman's philosophy of creating BCRIC.

He decided to create BCRIC and give away the assets of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Milton Friedman, not Karl Friedmann.

In 1977 Milton Friedman laid out the policy of the BCRIC system and

getting rid of assets that belonged to the people by giving them away

in shares. Anyway, they created the BCRIC organization. I believe they

had something like $600 million or $700 million when they were

finished. If that organization, with some advice from the government,

had taken that money and invested it in new industries, new procedures

and new technology, that money by now would have created many jobs. But

what did they do with the investment? It was controlled by the

so-called business community of this province. They were going to show

the people how they were going to manage their BCRIC shares. They took

that money and gave a quarter of a billion dollars to Kaiser, and they

bought the southeast coal fields. It didn't create one new tonne of

coal; it didn't create one new job. It bought out something that was

already there. It was an instant corporate power struggle.

That money should have been invested in new industry and new

technology to create new jobs. Mr. Kaiser was earning a fair return on

his original investment. He was creating work. The coal was there; it

had been there for thousands and thousands of years. But this

government allowed the assets of this province to be frittered away in

such a manner that it didn't create the workforce that was needed. That

opportunity was there in 1979. This government knew that.

Economists reported in their journals in 1979 that these particular

hard times, or the depression that we're in today, were to come. It

wasn't something new. Even the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) got up and said that in speeches. I remember the present Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) condemning him in 1979, because

he had the intestinal fortitude to say that in the eighties we were

going to be heading into a depression. It wasn't new. I don't think

that he was any more far-sighted than any of the rest of us, but he had

the guts to say what was going to happen. This government wouldn't

listen. They were determined to destroy the potential of creating new

jobs and new industries. Because of mismanagement, this government has

created so many of the problems that we're in today. They have looked

at it so politically.... They wanted an instant answer, and they wanted

something to happen. They wanted to hide the facts as they came up.

For instance, in September 1982, when the House adjourned after a short session,

we were going to create jobs for the economy. This government failed to call

the House back into operation. All through the end of 1982, into 1983, past

the traditional January-February time when parliaments are called back, past

the traditional times when budgets are presented, what did this government do?

They hid. They hid in their cabinet rooms and governed the province with orders-in-council

and warrants. Then they called the election because they didn't have the

guts to say that their mismanagement had gotten this province into the worst

economic mess it had ever been in, They wouldn't allow....

[4:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: And what did the people say?

MR. MITCHELL: Because you wouldn't tell them what the

situation was. You wouldn't come out and tell them that the 23 percent

increase in natural resource revenue that you had predicted in 1982 was

false, was wrong. They allowed the government to go into an election

with their slick advertising, they won the election.... And I concede

that they won the election. I concede that the 22 members of the

opposition represent 45 percent of the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: The member down here says that I don't

represent 45 percent of the population. I represent 57 percent of the

population in my riding, if that helps him any. This government did not

bring the facts out and did not do the positive things that were needed.

There are needs in each community that can help to create a little

employment. I would like to bring to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the

Minister of Lands, Parks, Housing and the Environment (Hon. Mr.

Brummet), now that he's here in the House and I've got him.... I won't

talk to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser),

because he's not here, but I brought this problem to the minister, and

I have talked to many of his staff. That's the problem of Whiffin Spit

in the Sooke area. Whiffin Spit is a natural bar that goes across Sooke

harbour. It's been there for hundreds of years and protects the inner

basin of the Sooke harbour. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

is quite aware of the area. Two years ago — a year ago last January —

storms, high tides, and I believe a low-pressure area, all came

together and wiped out the centre of Whiffin Spit. Because Whiffin Spit

has been there for years, the inner harbour of Sooke has become a

natural boat basin for the fishing fleet — commercial and pleasure

boats. At the present time this hole in the spit allows the rollers to

come into the inner harbour during high tides in a storm. I've written

to the federal public works, I've written to the minister, I've talked

to all their staff. But this particular job or work project should be

carried out immediately. Not only would it protect the investment of

the fishing fleet in the inner harbour, not only would it protect the

investment of those with their recreational boats, but it would create

some needed employment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the report.

MR. MITCHELL: I've read the report and I've talked to all the

engineers, Mr. Provincial Secretary. The engineers are like economists

— they give you different viewpoints.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which one did you pick?

MR. MITCHELL: The one that's most important: that we correct

the problem now. The engineers tell me that it can be corrected with

some heavy rock properly placed on the seaward side of the spit. It's

been done all over the world. A hole

[ Page 3527 ]

in a spit or a breakwater is not something new to

Sooke. It's not something new to the world. The minister and the

Provincial Secretary are well aware of that, but they continue to wait,

without correcting the problem, which can be corrected without a large

amount of money. I would say that it would do what is needed: it would

create some employment in Sooke; it would create some employment for

contractors. It can be done anytime. We got over the main storms of

this year. We were lucky this year that the storms came when the tide

was out; the high tides didn't come when the atmosphere happened to be

low pressure in that area.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I'm saying to this government, and I

say it time after time: the government fails to give any leadership.

The previous speaker, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael)

mentioned the need for a better approach to the negotiations dealing

with the pulp workers' lockout. I agree with him that there has to be a

different approach. What he failed to bring to the attention of the

House is that the workers who are locked out of the pulp mills are not

on strike. Management has created this economic problem in British

Columbia. It is management that locked out this industry, while

negotiations were still under planning.

MR. MICHAEL: Be fair.

MR. MITCHELL: I am fair. It was management that locked out.

The only time an industry shuts down is when the workers withdraw their

labour. The member is aware of it. Though he said it's costing the

province of British Columbia $10 million a day, according to the

headlines in yesterday's paper it is costing the economy of British

Columbia $5 million a day. I'm not going to argue if it's $5 million,

$10 million or $7 million; it's costing the economy of this province a

large amount of money. That money could be in circulation if the

government would give some sort of leadership in negotiations — not the

heavy-handed "smash' like they did to their own civil servants, but

treat people with some dignity. Cover the issues and then tell both

management and labour to sit down and continue negotiating while they

keep the wheels of the economy moving.

At times I think that the government and large businesses are more

interested in destroying the rights, the wages and the standard of

living in this time of depression. I feel that they use the excuse of

restraint, when really they are trying to bring out their bias, to do

away with social benefits that have been gained by elections, by

changes in government and by governments over many years. They have the

desire to cut back those gains. They're going to cut back human rights.

The Minister of Finance makes cuts to those who are unfortunate enough

to be on welfare, who haven't had an increase in two and a half years.

With all the inflation that this province has been faced with, they

haven't had an increase. But they are really going to cure the people

who are suffering under the poverty level: they are going to cut them

and let them starve a little better. This is something that this

government appears to get a lot of enjoyment out of. I really don't

think they do, but I think they are being sucked along by the

right-wing philosophy of the Fraser Institute. They are being sucked

into saying: "We'll get back at the workers of this province whenever

we get an opportunity. Now we have a little depression, we can kick

them a little more." This is wrong. This is a time when the government

should accept their responsibility. They should start planning for full

employment. They should start planning to diversify our industries.

They should sit down with the community and say: "Where are we in

British Columbia going to go now?" We can't go back and make the same

mistakes that history made. We have to look ahead.

In closing, I say that this amendment calls for employment. It calls

for people to have the opportunity to work. I have always liked this

little saying that I read in some magazine, and I wrote it down and

have always kept it. It says: "Without a job. People without a job have

no soul, no life, no identity and no purpose." In closing, I'd like to

say that it is time everybody had a job.

MR. BLENCOE: Unfortunately I notice the government is about to fly in the street.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We wanted to listen to you.

MR. BLENCOE: Good. Glad to hear it.

MR. REID: We heard you were speaking, and everybody is just dying to hear you, so let's have some good stuff. Be positive for a change.

MR. BLENCOE: It is very timely that the Victoria contingent

of this Legislature speak to this particular amendment, because it

deals with a very critical issue in this riding at this time. Victoria

has the dubious distinction now of having the second-highest

unemployment rate for any metropolitan area in Canada. We have 16.2

percent unemployment — 18,000 people that we know about and many more

have given up or are on welfare or UIC exhaustees. We are now

classified, according to federal authorities, as a depressed area in

Canada: 16.2 percent or 18,000 people. We have had no indication from

this government, and particularly those members who represent the only

two Socred ridings on this Island, that they believe it is not an

issue. "It is something that can be avoided, and there really is no

problem." That great indicator, St. John's, Newfoundland, has often

been used as an indicator of very bad unemployment. Victoria now has

the distinction of having a higher unemployment rate than St. John's,

Newfoundland. I won't go into the reasons St. John's has particularly

high unemployment, but the fact of the matter is that there is a crisis

in this community that is going unheeded by the government. In this

budget, there is not one solitary word or sense of hope, understanding

or compassion for the unemployed of this province, and particularly for

the 18,000 in my riding who are still trying to find work in greater

Victoria or southern Vancouver Island.

[4:45]

We have 16.2 percent official unemployment rate, which is probably

closer to 20 percent given those who have given up and those who are on

welfare. I have challenged the two members from the other two ridings

in Victoria represented by Socreds to come with me and see the results

of their policies. The devastation of your economic policies are

clearly coming home to roost in this particular capital region of

British Columbia. This is one of the finest cities in this country, and

you are leaving so many people in this region with a feeling of

hopelessness, particularly our young people. We have over 25 percent

unemployment in our young people, and where are they supposed to go? I

recognize that we have some problems in this province. I recognize the

[ Page 3528 ]

western world is in an economic slump, but

government still has a responsibility to help those in need. That is

one of the major roles of government. You cannot say that it is the

responsibility of somebody else and leave those thousands and thousands

of people, their families and their children to experience the ravages.

I reiterate, particularly to those two Socred members from this area,

to come and see who is unemployed in this region. It is not the normal

under-skilled or poorly educated who are feeling the ravages of

unemployment in this region. We have a whole new scenario building in

this region, and of course it's happening elsewhere — the new

unemployed. There are accountants in the soup line at St. Andrew's

Cathedral. There are public servants, who felt — I think with good

reason — when they joined the public service of British Columbia and

started a career, that after 15 or 20 years there was a degree of

security of service, and that perhaps they could see their days out

serving the people of British Columbia. But we know what's happening to

the public servants in this area and in this province. By the actions

of this government they have become second- and third-class citizens,

not only in terms of the attitudes of this government and what it does

in its policies but also in terms of its philosophical bent.

They have declared war on the public servants in this area. I have

given many speeches on that particular topic, and I will continue to do

so. Treat those public servants with decency and work with them. They

have served this province well. I can assure you that there are many

professional people in Victoria who never thought they would see their

careers go down in flames because of the current depopulation and

unemployment strategy this government has laid on this capital region

of British Columbia.

I've had some members of this House attack our community office

because it had "NDP" over one segment of it. Just for the record, I

would remind them that there are two offices there — one is a New

Democrat office and one is a community office. Again I ask any Socred

MLA who wants to to come down to that office with me tonight or

tomorrow. We are dealing on a daily basis with the results of what's

happening in terms of your policies. We now have over 400 cases per

month in that office dealing with the ravages of unemployment and your

economic policies. We have to deal with that misery on a daily basis.

Quite frankly I am tired of seeing young families coming to see our

staff in our office who only want some indication from their government

that it cares about them and about unemployment, that at least there's

a caring by this government for the 300 to 400 people who are being fed

on a daily basis at St. Andrew's, and the 300 or 400 people who are

lining up for food at St. Vincent de Paul, that this government does

have some understanding of what is happening. Our community office is

dealing with the results, and we're proud to say that we're doing our

best to deal with them, but unfortunately we can't do it alone. There

has to be a government in power that recognizes that unemployment is a

social ill and that it has to be dealt with in a fair and compassionate

way. There are programs that are working in other jurisdictions during

depressions that can start to take on this awful sickness that is

pervading our province, and particularly this riding.

Again I remind these members of the 18,000 people in this area, families with

children — and we're dealing on a daily basis with that result... I

implore this government, I implore that member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) and I implore that member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith)

to listen to their constituents. Thousands of their constituents are unemployed.

Here is the Minister of Finance now. I've asked that minister to join with

us, the Victoria MLAs, and anyone else he sees fit, to take a serious non-partisan

look at this problem and to work together on it. We have to have the resolve

to tackle this social corruption in our communities — and particularly, Mr. Speaker,

I have to say, in this riding. I would reiterate that there are between 300

and 500 cases per month in our community office. Unfortunately we cannot handle

many of them, and I don't know what's going to happen to them. I honestly

have to tell this government, this Minister of Finance and the Premier — if

he were here — that I don't know what is going to happen to these people.

You cannot turn your back on that kind of plight.

I don't understand, and I will never understand, why a government

can suddenly find $470 million to bail out a debt of the BCR that we

all know is tied in to B.C. Coal — and it's going to cost the taxpayers

of the province millions and millions of dollars in the future. How can

they justify, with a straight face, what they're doing up there at the

cost of cutting programs and support mechanisms that can