[ Page 7013 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Ritchie –– 7013

Mr. King –– 7017

Mr. Strachan –– 7021

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to ask the House to welcome a man involved in ranching in my area: Mr. Bob McHaffie from White Lake Ranch is up in the gallery.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. RITCHIE: Last night the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was very considerate when he announced that he would not bore us with a lecture on economics. I was hoping that he would be in his chair this morning because there seemed to be some confusion in his views of liquidation and liquefying. For his benefit, I thought that, should he be entering into the field of economics, he should understand that whenever a business gets into that situation you usually liquidate.

MR. SEGARTY: Nobody caught that. Say it again.

MR. RITCHIE: No one caught that, I'm told. Well, he had me somewhat confused. He was talking about some business that got into trouble and their trucks were to be liquefied, and I wasn't sure whether they were going to be melted down or liquidated.

He said that the speeches from this side of the House were both amusing and sad. He accused us of making personal attacks. That is not so. We are merely attempting to point out the weaknesses of the opposition members. The weakness of that opposition is what we are attempting to point out. We are trying to point out your negative attitude and, it seems, your total lack of ability to provide this government with effective opposition. Mr. Speaker, I'm here on my feet to oppose this motion, because I feel that the greatest threat we face is the negative attitude of those who live in a world of doom and gloom. It seems to me that the NDP lack-lustre, negative, repetitious and sometimes conflicting attacks are simply a coverup for their inability to offer the effective opposition they should be offering. I believe that they are shackled by their socialist philosophy, once described by Winston Churchill as "a party of duds."

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the performance by the opposition members in this debate so far.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to give us little score cards?

MR. RITCHIE: No, I'm not going to mark cards, but I'm going to start with the Leader of the Opposition, who said that he will fight tooth and nail for British Columbia. In spite of all his funny, little attention-getting antics, let's not forget his real dream, Mr. Speaker, and that is to socialize Canada from sea to sea.

How he tore into our Premier over the activities of that group who would split up this country! There was also some suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that back-bench members were supportive of separation. Again I have been singled out as one of them.

MR. LEA: You are one of them.

MR. RITCHIE: Let me respond to that with some facts which have been officially endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition and four other NDP MLAs sitting in this House.

Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I would like to go back to a speech that I have made many times on certain occasions. I think it's rather fitting for this time, since this sort of debate was entered into by the Leader of the Opposition. I won't go through it all, but I will take parts of it just to put on record how this member feels about the question of separation. I believe I echo the feelings of my colleagues as well.

I was not born in Canada, but chose to come here close to 30 years ago. I chose Canada. I chose to leave a country for which I have much affection in order to carve out a future here for my family. Because of this, I can talk about Canada as one who has not always known its benefits, as an immigrant who even now still marvels at many things about my chosen country. Having chosen Canada freely, I do not wish to see it shattered now that it has become our home.

There were many reasons we chose to come to Canada. Perhaps all of them can be summed up in one word: potential. This country offers people of every nationality the chance to succeed through hard work. Such harmony, such shared goals are by no means common elsewhere in the world. The privilege of being a Canadian is the privilege of sharing in an astounding natural wealth. Mr. Speaker, I have lost none of my enthusiasm for its greatness; I have lost none of my desire to see it remain the country I came to.

The potential I spoke of still exists for new generations. In some ways it is even an unrealized potential, awaiting another generation to begin some of the tasks that remain to be done. We must look far beyond our own selfish needs if Canada is to live up to its rich potential. As an immigrant to this country, I have a heightened awareness of our international obligations. I look forward to the day when our unknown agricultural capacity is fully tested and turned to feeding the world's starving peoples. Only when this country begins to achieve such goals will I really be able to feel that Canada as a nation has begun to achieve its goals the way it has allowed individual citizens to achieve theirs. For this is a generous country; if it were not, it would not have opened its doors to so many people like me to look for a better life here.

Despite the many times our western provinces disagree with Ottawa, this remains a generous country. We have a country so rich that generosity comes naturally — generosity with the world, generosity with each other. Sometimes this capacity for generosity is a little strained. Tensions between east and west in Canada are a good example; but a fundamental feeling of good will underpins even the disagreements the western provinces have with Ottawa. The great potential, the great resources of this country, should make each Canadian feel secure, and, as we all know, from security comes tolerance and accommodation.

Thirty years ago — it's over 30 ago now, Mr. Speaker — it would have been far beyond my imagination to think that I would be standing here today, speaking on behalf of over 60,000 people of the Central Fraser Valley as their representative. I hope I speak not only on their behalf, but on behalf of the several million people who chose to be Canadians as I did. I certainly hope the press will give that the kind of

[ Page 7014 ]

coverage which the Leader of the Opposition got with respect to his remarks on this particular matter.

Just to go on record with respect to the position of the members of the opposition as that position applies to the division of Canada, I have in my file here a document signed by the Leader of the Opposition and by, I believe, at least four other members still sitting in this House, a document that puts very clearly their position as far as Canada is concerned. I think you'll agree with me that their position is socialism for Canada at any cost. It says in this document, which they have endorsed: "...there is no denying the existence of two nations within Canada, each with its own language, culture and aspirations. This reality must be incorporated into the strategy of the New Democratic Party." This is not hearsay; this is fact; this is from The Waffle Manifesto. It's with them and will always be with them. They're on record as being prepared to do anything, even to separate this great land of ours, in the name of socialism. I hope this will be heard outside and read, because I think it's only fair that the people out there know what the true facts are.

I want to touch a little on a few comments from other members, since there has been some criticism by the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Mitchell) with respect to speeches from this side of the House. I'm not dreaming up these things; I'm taking it right out of Hansard. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said: "They promised some sort of restraint program. Call it what you like — what it's going to do is swell the ranks of the unemployed." This member has obviously not read and does not understand the restraint program. It is not going to create unemployment; it's going to protect the people. It's going to make sure that those who are protected in the public sector will get a fair increase. We're not cutting salaries; we're not creating unemployment; we're saying we must share and share alike. But I wonder if that member is prepared to tell the people in her community, those who are laid off, that she is opposed to this restraint program and that she believes that we should not control those who would demand more and more out of the public purse.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said: "I am not offering advice one way or the other, but...I will examine the 1982-83 budget proposals. This examination will focus in the main on the need for job creation — a need tragically and callously ignored in this budget." He says it's a budget of "dishonesty and despair." While he says that, I must make some allowance here, because I'm sure he was correct when he said he worked most of the night, so he most likely missed a lot in it. The budget states it quite clearly:

"The budget I am tabling here today injects $358 million more into the economy than we are withdrawing in revenue. Directly and indirectly this stimulus alone will create some 9,000 jobs in British Columbia. It is an economic stimulus to assist British Columbians during this period of short-term weakness. Projects now underway, or beginning this year, represent a total capital spending program of $3.6 billion. Of this total $1.2 billion will actually be spent during the 1982-83 fiscal year, providing close to 40,000 jobs."

Mr. Speaker, when he made his comment, obviously he totally forgot about the great projects that are going on in this province, such as northeast coal, B.C. Place, ALRT, and so on.

He then said: "I'm sure that big business, which is waiting for some kind of leadership from this government, will have despair after seeing the budget speech of yesterday." Listen to what big business did say. I quote from the report put out by the Employers Council of British Columbia.

"In this budget, the council president noted, the government has chosen to create jobs by supporting economic growth rather than government work programs. This will prove to have more lasting effects on B.C. prosperity than grants or subsidies, and is one of the positive attitudes reflected in the budget.

"He went on to say: 'It was encouraging that Mr. Curtis has again produced a balanced budget. This is something that all of us agree is desirable but quite a few of us believed would be extremely difficult at the present time. Curtis has done this by attaining the support of his colleagues for a major program of government restraint in almost all their programs. This deserves support from all quarters, since it was the basis on which increased sales and personal income taxes as well as corporation tax increases were avoided....'

"In summary, this budget takes an optimistic view of British Columbia over the next year; it reflects a vigorous restraint program by the government and it introduces several significant job-creation programs and other changes which should be helpful to our province.

"The most encouraging aspect to every British Columbian must be the Finance minister's statement that we are reaching the point beyond which heavier taxation would undermine our economic future. The government is prepared to say it is large enough; it believes increased public services can be provided only if government becomes more efficient or if savings are made elsewhere."

That's what the big-business sector said, in spite of the comments of the finance critic from the opposition.

Then we have the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who says: "Once again, it's the old Social Credit flimflam: overestimate the revenues...." I want you all to listen to this carefully, because you could miss the point. "Overestimate the revenues and underestimate the expenditures." That's what was said this year. What did he say last year? Last year he said: "What it reflects is an overestimation of expenditures" — it's reversed; he's flexible — "and an underestimation of the revenues."

I didn't have time to go back into the year previous to that, but it would seem to me that that member is so darned lazy or something that all he does is take his speech from the previous year and reverse it. So next year we can be ready for the attack. Next year the attack is going to be an overestimation of expenditures and an underestimation of revenues; we can be ready for that. You won't have to write that speech, Mr. Member. In fact, you won't even have to make it, because we already know what you're going to say next year. Your supporters out there must be very disappointed in you if they're keeping track of some of the things you're saying in this House. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), when talking about the school tax, said that we cooked the books. I wasn't around at the time, but if memory serves me correctly and if the information I received was correct, I think it would be fair to say that his books, when he was minister, were so

[ Page 7015 ]

well cooked that they were overdone, and he packed them up and disappeared into the night with them, being so ashamed of them. He said that he believes in democracy in education, but this does not include private education, private schools, only public, except under special circumstances. Should an election be under way, that approach to democracy in education changes because he then involves all of them, he includes all of them: "We'll give you all democratic rights within education." Of course, we know about the famous letter in which he told the private school people: "If you vote for us, we will continue to support the private education system." Then the member has the audacity to stand up and say that we're all on a personal attack.

I could go on, There was the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), but I'm not going to go through that because I hear so much of that stuff.

Many of my constituents were looking forward to viewing our Minister of Finance deliver his speech on television as this has been, I believe, a tradition of this House for about ten years. Since then, I have heard from many people who were very disappointed people because they were denied that privilege by the opposition party, a move that was spearheaded by the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). It was a disgusting demonstration of his true interest in democracy and his interest in so many people out there who do not have the opportunity or the privilege to come and witness such an event, particularly the budget that was delivered this year. That one of their members would have the audacity to come into this House the following day with a private member's bill asking that television be used in the chamber is, I'd say, a case of blatant hypocrisy, or else they're simply a totally disorganized group, where the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. It is obvious to this side of the House that they are not only a badly split party but a totally disorganized party as well. They don't know what they stand for. It's obvious to me that their real concern is not for the people of this province; rather they are more concerned with their desire for another chance to plunge this province into a state of socialism. Before they consider themselves a credible party, they had better get their act together.

On behalf of my constituents, it's indeed a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to extend congratulations and a great deal of credit to our Minister of Finance on his most exciting and most imaginative budget — a budget such as I don't believe has ever been presented in this House before. Nowhere in Canada have we seen such skill in developing a budget that benefits all British Columbians at a time when our economy is under attack. We don't have to go too far to compare this budget with others. We are being hit by a depressed housing market in the United States and Canada, severely cutting into our income from the forest industry.

We're being hit by a brutal monetary policy put in place by the federal government and shockingly high interest rates that not only make it very difficult to purchase a home but are causing many to, lose their homes and resulting in bankruptcies in the business sector. We are also suffering from the costs of staggering debts piled up by that same federal government, debts resulting from their uncontrolled spending in many areas that have little if anything to do with making Canada a stronger country or providing for real people needs.

The budget just presented by our Minister of Finance proves that services to the people can be improved, revenue bearing projects can be invested in and exciting new job creation programs can be put in place without adding additional tax burdens on our people. This budget proves that there are more efficient ways to administer the public purse. Much to my delight is the fact that a major portion of the funding will come from being more efficient in the administration of the taxpayers' dollars. The budget also shows how this government wishes to be fair in its efforts to become more efficient: the 12 percent increase in spending in municipalities, schools, hospitals, etc.; a 6.1 percent increase on our own budget; wages in the public sector are set at 10 percent and could rise to 14 percent; and we in this House are prepared to accept 8 percent. While these restraints are in place, those high people priorities will be allowed to exceed the 12 percent ceiling.

We are in a time when the skills of the business people and those of us in government are being tested. It is a time to identify waste in spending, and a time to have the courage to eliminate that waste so that those dollars are made available for essential programs. This budget gives strong leadership in our desire for control over the spending of public funds. It's a budget that clearly shows that this government is quite prepared to lead the way towards greater fiscal responsibility.

The budget sets in motion the best job-creating plans in North America. I would like for a moment to compare this with the plan thrown together at the last minute by the Leader of the Opposition, which would have increased our provincial expenditures by approximately $2.4 billion — but we know different — or would have meant a budget increase for this fiscal year of over 30 percent. But the tax load that would be put on the backs of those willing to work in this province would be so horrendous that I believe we would again see an exodus from British Columbia should those people ever have the opportunity to carry out such a costly plan — a plan that no doubt would put this province in the same mess that we find our federal government in, where almost 25 percent of the federal income is siphoned off to pay debts resulting from this sort of reckless spending.

I would like to quote part of an article from the Province which appeared quite recently. In talking about the Leader of the Opposition, should he ever become Premier of this province again, it says: "His three-year record was dismal. He increased government spending by a staggering $500 to $1,300 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia and promised to keep spending. He blew it when times were good. Could he do any better today in a recession?" Never truer words were printed.

However, we should not be fooled by their calculations. We recently had the programs that they suggested costed out on a realistic basis, and they would total not $2.4 billion, but rather closer to $6 billion. The taxpayers of this province cannot afford that type of Johnny-come-lately scatterbrained planning today, any more than they could afford it in 1975.

This budget gives strong leadership in our desire for control over the spending of public funds. It's a budget that puts squarely in front of the public that this government is quite prepared to give leadership towards greater fiscal responsibility. It sets in motion the best job-creation programs. It provides close to 50,000 new jobs. It provides $75 million towards school tax relief for residential property-owners, and close to $133 million for job-creation measures throughout the province. It provides close to $78 million to alleviate the necessity for additional fee increases in health-care services.

Mr. Speaker, much to my pleasure, it increases the number of farm-related items exempt from sales tax, and I thank

[ Page 7016 ]

you for that, Mr. Minister. I felt right along that that would be looked at very fairly, and it was.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're still worried about the turkey saddles.

MR. RITCHIE: We won't worry about the turkey saddles. I think they've all been sold off now.

But in any case, I was very pleased with that, particularly because of the comment by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who, when we were discussing this issue in this House, advised you not to do so — not to allow that. He said: "Don't do it. Where do you stop? The more you give, the more they'll want." He said: "Give them subsidies, or some other form of socialistic support." Mr. Minister, I thank you for that, and I'm sure I speak for many farmers out in my community and throughout the province.

I should also thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) for his support. I wouldn't want to leave him out, because he worked very hard with me in order to have those changes made.

Mr. Speaker, the budget removes the provincial fuel tax on propane and compressed natural gas for motor vehicles, and it allows for a $200 grant to individuals towards the cost of converting motor vehicles from gasoline.

Of tremendous interest to me will be the introduction of legislation to allow the province to issue housing and employment development bonds, giving British Columbians an opportunity to invest in their province with a tax incentive. Here is an opportunity for the federal government to show how sincere they are in helping us to make mortgage money available to those wishing their own homes.

There are two highlights in this budget of which I'm extremely proud and must make more mention of, because I believe that they are not only imaginative highlights but also courageous initiatives by this government that will be of tremendous benefit to every citizen of British Columbia in years to come.

The budget gives us a very distinct indication that this government is now determined to reduce government spending and become much more efficient, so that we may leave more dollars in the hands of the people. That is one highlight, Mr. Speaker, which I'm extremely proud of and excited about, because my people have been telling me that we can't continue the way we're doing, that we must reduce the size of government, reduce government spending and get a handle on government taxation. This is only a start and I will be pressing for more initiatives in this direction and pushing to see our government privatize where we can, so that we can have fewer effects on the people and leave more dollars out there in the private sector. In the long run, this will eventually come back to help the people at large.

The plan to issue housing and employment development bonds is a tremendous forward step and, in my opinion, a method of providing funding that not only gives those who have money to invest an opportunity to make a sound investment with some tax incentives, but also gives them an opportunity to express their pride and confidence in our province.

I hope that both these areas that I have highlighted are only the beginning of more exciting things to come. I believe that since our provincial government does not have any say in the monetary policies of this country, we must develop a vehicle which will redirect a lot of that personal investment and capital that is now going into the major banks and trust companies of this country into provincial investments from which all British Columbians and Canadians will benefit.

I will be encouraging our government to consider the establishment of three funds to be administered separately. I am particularly interested in seeing some long-term financing made available not only for housing but also for business development and agricultural development.

From experience, I can tell you that one of the big problems that we have out there today in purchasing a home is the uncertainty of knowing just what your payments are going to be two, three or four years down the road. I believe that if we could put a price on the cost to government of family break-ups, etc., brought on and aggravated by those young couples who are unable to support such payments, we would be astonished. I say that we must somehow develop a vehicle whereby we can return to that stable situation where a young couple, when they venture into purchasing their own home, which we encourage them to do, will realize that the first three, four or five years are going to be tough. Once they get through that, things will start to level off for them and the financial pressures will come off so that the remaining years in that home will be easier for raising their family and keeping that family unit together.

When it comes to agricultural development — farming and business — we all know that grants don't do very much for us. We don't want handouts. What any good, healthy business wants is long-term financing. That's what gives it stability. I just want to say that I will be pushing our government to continue on this path and become even more ambitious in attracting that money that is now going to those major banks into funds that we will administer here in the province for the benefit of British Columbians. I know that after our government has had sufficient experience and has demonstrated that this vehicle will produce the desired results, this province can lead North America in the development of our overall economy.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said last November: "So what have they done since they've been in power since 1975? There's been no money into research for new technology and no exploration to find new industry to add wealth." Well, again I hope his people up there have been following, but let's look at the record of this government. Let's take research and development: $91.3 million spent on scientific activities in 1980-81, and I believe the amount is somewhat similar this year. Of that there was $19.1 million in industrial development, $6.6 million on food and related areas, $17.3 million on social development and related areas, $14.4 million allocated to Discovery Foundation, $3 million for health-related research, $1.3 million on a four-year coal liquefaction project and $1.3 million in a fisheries and technology program.

Then he said there was nothing done to create work. Well, here it is. Job creation: northeast coal, approximately 5,800 jobs plus, plus, plus; Expo 86: projected over four years, 4,000 jobs; trade and convention centre, 1,000 jobs; ALRT, 1,700 jobs; Lonsdale Quay,400 jobs; New Westminster development, 1,400 jobs; CP jet engine overhaul plant,400 jobs; and B.C. Place, 2,000 jobs. It's exciting, Mr. Speaker. I haven't got the total here, but it's estimated to be around 50,000 jobs. But when you stop to think of the new port facilities, if you stop to think of all of the new highways, the new town, the new hydro and all of the spinoff benefits, there is no end to the jobs that this will create. They are so blind, so negative and so gloomy that they say we've done nothing to create work.

[ Page 7017 ]

Mr. Speaker, since I represent a strong agricultural constituency, I fully anticipate some criticism from the opposition critic for Agriculture to be levelled at our Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) with respect to the amount of money that is allocated to that ministry. I have said this before and I'll continue to say it, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of money allocated to a ministry is no judge of the quality of the service that that ministry can provide. I don't believe that we should allow ourselves to fall into the old trap that the more money you spend, the better job you do, because somebody has to pay the bills. What we must do, Mr. Speaker, is make sure that there is no waste and no frills. We must make sure that we are being efficient and working with less and doing more.

In closing I extend on behalf of my constituents congratulations and a great deal of appreciation to our Premier for the courage that he has displayed in leading this province — and indeed Canada — into our program of government restraint. I would like to go on record saying for the Premier's sake that both my councils in my constituency — hospital or school board — are all supportive of this initiative. Oh yes, we've got a few out there who listen to the doom-and-gloomers and cry the blues, but I don't pay any attention to them. They're just a little handful,

I spoke just recently to the teachers association, and they had, out of approximately 600 members....

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: Just in closing, I would like to say that I would also like to deliver that same message to our Minister of Finance for a fine budget, which I am very proud of and will support all the way through. But I oppose this NDP motion of non-confidence.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the member who just took his seat. He struggled mightily to rationalize the Social Credit system of bookkeeping. Their system of manipulating figures to try to produce an image from the budget which is totally at variance with the economic reality of the province at the moment. That member is getting quite good, with his brogue, at attempting to persuade people. He is trying to justify a totally irrational argument, and I enjoyed listening to him go through his speech, frequently contradicting himself.

I get a kick out of the Social Credit government. They want to use the federal government as a whipping-boy for all of the economic ills of the province — condemn them for overspending and budgetary deficits — and yet they trot down to Ottawa on every occasion with their hands out, trying to increase their revenue from the federal government. When they don't receive it, then they start flirting with the western separatists. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't ask the federal government to pursue a monetary policy which dries up the money supply and then condemn the effect on the province of British Columbia. It's totally irrational. These are the people who were advocating a monetary policy which did reduce the federal money supply with the consequence that interest rates went up. Of course, the natural consequence of that is that unemployment goes up along with it, because there is a slowdown in home-building and construction and all other business activities. To listen to someone try to wrestle with that equation and justify the province's position is really interesting — and a bit pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition recognizes that we do indeed have difficult economic times at the moment, and we're not suggesting it's all the provincial government's fault, by any means. The market for our forest products, which is our number one industry, is certainly very soft. That's the primary reason for our economic troubles, for the high unemployment rate, for the plant closures and so on. Our position, and what we're trying persuade the government of, is that their priorities are not very intelligent in terms of dealing with the market slump and the chaotic state of the economy at the moment. We can debate the megaprojects, but the government is committed to them. Unfortunately they are not prepared at this time to share with the House or to share with the public the details of those megaprojects — at least many of them, such as northeast coal. We don't know what the economics of it are because the minister steadfastly refuses to take the public, who are putting up most of the money, into his confidence, and that's unfortunate. I suppose it's a fait accompli under whatever circumstances the minister is able to put it together. But we are suggesting that there are some things the government could do during this economic slump that would make a great deal more sense than funnelling large amounts of public money into megaprojects in one location.

We would argue that the forest industry provides an opportunity for developing jobs on a regional and provincial basis and dispersing those jobs throughout the province so that there's some regional equality in employment opportunity. The forest industry uniquely lends itself to job creation throughout the length and breadth of the province, rather than a major public investment in one isolated megaproject — a megaproject which is not an ongoing resource comparable to the forest industry, at least. We would argue that at this particular time we should be directing additional investment into the forest industry, not just maintaining what the Legislature had previously committed, so that our timber supply will be increased and when the market does rebound, we'll have an opportunity to increase our production, increase our harvest, generate more employment and generally be in a stronger market condition vis-à-vis our competitors in the forest industry.

I think most people would agree that that makes a lot of sense. The member who took his seat chose to argue against and condemn in a highly partisan way the package we had put together as a party; that's okay, but I think he'd have great difficulty persuading the thousands of forest workers who are now unemployed. I think he'd have difficulty persuading any of the companies involved in the industry that the program we have suggested, which would put about 5,000 people to work now in the forest industry for an additional investment of about $63 million — not a billion dollars directed to trade and convention centres, football stadiums and so on, but $63 million ploughed back into our number one resource, putting 5,000 people to work planting more seedlings, recovering some of the forest land that is now not in production of merchantable fibre, and certainly in an accelerated thinning program so that the growth of our trees can be accelerated.... There is no question that these things are needed. The industry will tell you that. The professional foresters' association, provincially and nationally, is in fact telling us that unless we increase our investment in intensive forest management, we are facing not only an inability to keep pace with our current harvest needs, but a massive falldown in supply, which will result in further depression of employment opportunity and industrial activity.

[ Page 7018 ]

We're arguing this. We're saying to the government: look, you have your priorities wrong. That's what we're arguing about — that you have your priorities wrong. It makes sense from every point of view to use the forest industry now, during this lull in the market, as the underpinning of an economic recovery program. It's not going to solve the market problem — that's going to have to rebound in due course — but surely it makes sense to engage in these programs of site preparation, thinning, increasing nursery capacity and planting more trees. Surely it makes sense to do that now, because it means that we can increase our harvest in the future and that we could put to work over the course of the summer about 5,000 British Columbians who are sitting home in idleness now and receiving support payments either through unemployment insurance or social assistance.

In the forest industry, as in other industries, British Columbians are proud of their contribution to our economy. They would much rather be productively engaged in earning a livelihood through a physical investment in improving the resource for the future. It doesn't make any sense to let them sit home in idleness when we have the potential, capital and, certainly, the resource need to employ them usefully in improving our resource supply for the future.

What happens if we fail to do this? We have 15,000 or 20,000 forest-related workers out of jobs. Over the course of this summer many of them are going to exhaust their unemployment insurance stamps, so they will be a direct responsibility to the government through social assistance — a pretty traumatic kind of reliance for people who are accustomed to being productively involved in contributing to the provincial economy. Over the course of the summer, unless they gain some employment, their unemployment insurance benefits will dissipate, and they're facing yet another winter where all projections from the analysts and the economists in the forest industry are that there will not be a sufficient recovery of the U.S. house-building market to put our people and our plants back to work.

So we're trying to argue persuasively and sincerely to the government that despite their political priorities, they should have a look at the needs of the province, the needs of the unemployed, and the needs of our number one industry now. We are arguing on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the industry generally. We are tremendously concerned that, rather than take the direction we are suggesting, the government is indeed doing just the reverse. We have seen the elimination of the five-year Forest and Range Resource Fund in order to balance the budget this year. That means that those funds committed to intensive forest management by the Legislature have been wiped out by the Minister of Finance to make revenue available to balance the budget. Certainly, economically, I think that is a foolish and a retrogressive move. There is something else wrong with it too.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

There is a startling trend by this government, which I certainly oppose, to become a government by cabinet order-in-council. The Forest and Range Resource Fund was set up by the Legislature, debated in the Legislature and approved by the Legislature, but we find that the executive council arbitrarily eliminated that fund without any debate or approval from the Legislature. We are seeing that happen with alarming frequency. A continuation in that direction renders the parliament of this province irrelevant. It is anti-democratic and it's not consistent with our obligation as legislators to represent our public's point of view on important questions of policy such as this.

That is an aside, but the more important thing is that the government is taking the convenient route of putting a higher priority on balancing the budget from a bookkeeping point of view than on maintaining a healthy forest industry. They are not even maintaining the commitment that was made in 1980 to intensive silvicultural treatment. Our program is clear. We have said that funding should remain. That has to be a longterm commitment. Proper treatment and proper programs of reforestation cannot be undertaken effectively for one year. It has to be an ongoing annual commitment, and we are saying that that commitment should have indeed been retained as it was outlined in the five-year plan. Additionally, at this particular time, we are advocating the direction of an additional $63 million into intensive management of our forest resource. Let the facts be clear. This is our approach, and we think it makes sense from an economic and social point of view and from every practical aspect from which one wants to view it.

We should debate those things, by all means. If the government doesn't wish to accept that direction, fair enough. But it troubles me a bit when I hear speaker after speaker get up and distort the issue and say: "Well, you people over there are simply against megaprojects and all of the particular things the government is doing." Some of them are good. Some of them do create employment but it is highly centralized. It is not an investment in the future, by any stretch of the imagination, to the same extent that a major investment in our forest industry would be because it would increase our resource supply for the future and it would be regionally impacted throughout the whole province — which is very important at this particular time.

The Premier's own riding has one of the highest unemployment rates in the province of British Columbia. The Okanagan valley, the town of Kelowna is in a state of depression. We have major sawmills closing down. We have thousands of people unable to afford proper shelter. We have a report from the Professional Foresters Association dealing with the Okanagan timber supply area which anticipates a falldown in timber supply of pretty near a million cubic metres of fibre. They tell us that the silvicultural program in the Okanagan is not adequate at the moment. They tell us that the total harvesting in the Okanagan timber supply area should be 3.8 million cubic metres per year. That is the necessary level of harvest to maintain the plants operating now and to secure the jobs. The current harvest allowed in the Okanagan timber supply area is only 2.7 million cubic metres. This means lost jobs. It means reduced plant production. It means a negative impact on the economy.

The professional foresters in that area have made a presentation to the minister and to the government. They've made a presentation to the chambers of commerce and all of the city councils throughout the length and breadth of the Okanagan and Shuswap area. They are telling us that if we would now invest the necessary capital in the things I've been talking about, we could generate over 22,000 man-days of employment in that area, and we could increase the timber supply to an amount necessary to maintain the demands of the sawmills and the pulp mills operating in that area.

The government can't turn its back on this, reality and ignore it and hope that it will go away. In my view, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the more important policy matters — if

[ Page 7019 ]

not the most important — in the province right now: that is, the question of whether or not our timber, our number one resource, is going to continue to be a reliable source of revenue to the province for the future in a sustained-yield way, the major source of revenue that would continue to fund our social programs — health, education, human resources — and, through the provision of that resource revenue, to allow whatever government is in power to finance and fund the program, rather than dumping the onerous burden of taxation on the backs of the people, as is happening now.

We have seen this government introduce increases in every possible service over the past year — again, without respect to debate in the Legislature. Arbitrarily, by cabinet dictum, they have increased the water fees to B.C. Hydro, which in turn had no alternative but to pass those costs on to the consumer. We've seen massive increases in health premiums and everything from hunting and marriage licences to ferry rates and ICBC premiums. It shows you what happens when our resource revenue starts to dry up. The government is then forced to start gouging the people to support the social programs.

For the government to be so blind that they can't recognize the need now for setting an investment priority in that resource to increase the supply for the future, to guarantee that revenue will continue to come in from the forestry industry, is a kind of blindness that is totally irresponsible, and in my view sells out the interests of the people of the province of British Columbia.

Now that's the number one thing. It's our position that we should be investing in the forest industry rather than in big megaprojects that politicians on the government side are probably going to have named after them. Yes, they generate some employment, but it certainly isn't the answer to our long-term economic needs.

What else has the government done? They've eliminated the community recreational facilities fund. Again, they pulled in that money to help them balance their budget. That program was available to the municipalities, towns, cities and villages throughout the province of British Columbia. As such, it provided some equitable opportunity for communities to develop programs for cultural and athletic facilities in their communities. It generated employment, Mr. Speaker; maybe not a thousand jobs on one project, but through the building of facilities in small communities it provided jobs in a regional way. In my view, this makes a lot more sense than directing a billion dollars of public expenditure into one location and one project.

They abolished that fund. By so doing, the government is contributing to regional disparity. I've made this argument for years in the Legislature, and as a rural MLA, I'm angered that the government continually starves the rural areas of British Columbia by paying most attention and by directing most of the investment to the lower mainland and Vancouver area. I don't think we should be parochial, but when we continually see basic services eroded and cut back in the Kootenays and the north-central part of the province....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What about northeast coal?

MR. KING: Northeast coal. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, if the minister had been listening, if his colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) would agree to table the agreements, contracts and prices then we could have intelligent debate on that project, but so long as the government chooses to hide the details of contracts from the people and Legislature, that's on their head. We are not going to sign a blank cheque for this government. We don't trust them enough.

The point is that the rural members, whether they're on the government side or the opposition side, should be arguing for the retention of the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. It was one device....

MR. KEMPF: Which taxpayer are you going to take the money from?

MR. KING: Well, the government didn't seem to have too much trouble finding the billion dollars necessary for the huge development in downtown Vancouver, the football stadium, Transpo 86 — all of those things. What we're arguing is that the government has its priorities askew, and some of them have their minds in the same position. That's the problem.

The Community Recreation Facilities Fund was one device that offered some equality to all the regions of the province of British Columbia, and the government has wiped it out without debate. They destroyed that opportunity for some regional employment opportunities.

A case in point is the Shuswap Community Centre Society at Salmon Arm. That community has a very active, well-organized and pretty sophisticated organization for the performing and cultural arts. They would like to have a facility that would offer them the opportunity to perhaps put on more shows in that area to enhance tourism, which is heavy in that area. They would like to be able to attract travelling performers and artists, and have a facility with the acoustics and public seating necessary to make it a first-class improvement and a real attraction for the local people and tourists. They were turned down — no money for Shuswap's community centre for Salmon Arm. They feel resentful when they see massive amounts of money being channelled into one or two projects. They are telling me and this government that your priorities are wrong, and I agree.

It's interesting that the president of the society up there applied to the provincial government and to the federal government as well for a grant. The federal government said: Look, we haven't got any money left. They had set up a fund of $16.8 million for funding capital projects across Canada, and it was all spent. When she appealed to the federal minister, she asked why the elected officials of the community were not consulted with respect to how the funds were directed. We found from the minister's reply that in all cases a provincial commitment to the proposal had to be demonstrated before our support could be considered.

As you know, the government of the province of British Columbia was consulted prior to the examination of the Vancouver Art Gallery submission, and at that time was advised of the limited funds at our disposal and of the likelihood that full support for the project might curtail the amount of money available for other undertakings in the province. Provincial government officials were aware of these constraints, but continued to emphasize the need for federal government support of the Vancouver Art Gallery project. Therefore, in view of this strong recommendation, $4.5 million from the program was committed to the gallery in Vancouver.

[ Page 7020 ]

Again, I certainly don't believe in being too parochial, but where is the even-handedness? Where's the equity? We see this government committed to one or two major projects in downtown Vancouver to the exhaustion of provincial and federal funds, when rural communities throughout the length and breadth of the province have no opportunity for increasing and improving their cultural and recreational opportunities. Where's the equity?

If anyone wishes to argue that your priorities are correct, fair enough: let it be clear, let's talk about it when the election is called, and the people will make the final decision. But I say it's totally unfair. It doesn't make a lot of economic sense. It centralizes all of the opportunity in one area, without respect to the positive economic impact that could flow if some regional activity took place throughout the province. That was the original concept of the fund.

What about the student summer employment program? We find that the government has eliminated that. The community recreational facilities fund and the student summer employment fund were set up by the former NDP government in 1973. To their credit, the Social Credit government has continued both of them; they were recognized as good programs. They were well utilized throughout the province. They helped industry; they helped the educational system; they helped students of the province refinance their education. Now they're eliminated. Again, it is lost opportunity for the regional young people throughout this province, who perhaps had a chance to look forward to some employment opportunity over the summer months. Now there is a lack of funding. This government is obsessed with megaprojects and is directing all the funds into their pet political projects, and these particular programs, which offered opportunities evenhandedly throughout the province, are eliminated. How the member for Omineca and the member for Fort George can stand mutely by and allow this negative impact on their area and the people they represent is beyond me.

You heard the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) say it was the only budget that was ever presented in the House. That's a bit excessive, I'd say. But he said not a word about these important issues that affect his constituents as well.

We can talk in the House until we're blue in the face, but every one of us is going to be held to account by the people. It's not adequate to ignore the problems and hope that they're going to go away. You will indeed be held to account. Quite frankly, I'd be very pleased if the government changed its mind and its priorities, at least somewhat, to give recognition to what we're advocating in this respect. That's what we're asking.

The government's priorities are haywire. The House will remember that last year we moved cuts in the budget to the tune of $81 million, from four things basically: cabinet ministers' office furniture, their travel expenses, computer costs and building occupancy charges. We said: "Look, we're facing a tough economic year. Let's trim some of the fat out of the government's budget now." We proposed cuts in unproductive areas, in the luxury of cabinet ministers' offices. Had the government agreed with our motions, that $81 million would have been available now to fund some of the programs we're talking about: accelerated activity in management of the forest industry; some funding for community projects, through the recreational facilities fund; the creation of summer employment opportunities. What's wrong with that?

It's a matter of public record that just last year we moved those cuts and the government, with its majority, voted us down. Now they come back and tell us that we're in economic trouble and that we have to cut all these useful people programs to balance our books, and that they're going to impose restraint on certain people, which they demonstrated they were not prepared to accept themselves.

We say your priorities are wrong. The public of British Columbia is aware that your priorities are awry and foolish. You shall be held to account whenever the Premier musters the courage to ask the people for their decision on the matter.

Contrast the restraint this government is talking about now and their foolish priorities with the luxury of the cabinet tours. Just last summer the entire cabinet and a huge entourage, including the press gallery and, I believe, wives and executive assistants, which I don't argue with, made a tour of the Kootenays. They started out in Cranbrook. They rented two railway Budd cars and travelled in whistle-stop fashion, à la John Diefenbaker, up the Columbia Valley to Golden, over to Revelstoke, Salmon Arm and down to Vernon. I don't know how long they were in making that trip but I think something like two and a half or three days, and they hosted luncheons along the way with a bar — buy a little booze for the guests. I suppose that's all right too. I estimate that that little excursion cost in the area of $200,000. The same executive council went to Schooner Cove a little later and held a retreat in the luxury lodge up there. They can afford public funding for their personal priorities and pleasure and for their political needs, but at the same time they are cutting back those programs that I've identified. It is beyond debate; you know it is true. It is a matter of public record.

Again, I say that the priorities are totally wrong. This government has spent more on junkets, ministerial travel, luxurious office furniture, importing political lackeys from Ontario to shore up their political image, than they have spent on megaprojects. It is shameful, when we have 150,000 British Columbians unemployed, when we have communities like Salmon Arm being denied any opportunity for cultural and recreational development to see this rampant and selfish kind of expenditure by the members of the cabinet.

How much do all these things cost? In normal times I don't think people resent it or object. We travelled when we were in government. We recognize that certainly ministers have to travel; what we question is the need for the luxurious and extremely large contingents that went around politicking at public expense. It costs too much money in a time of restraint; it costs too much money when programs for people are being sacrificed. Mr. Speaker, what did it cost the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to take his helicopter junket up to northeast coal and officially open construction on it by setting off a blast of, I presume, dynamite. I think there were seven helicopters rented by the minister that went into that project for members of the media at public expense. Mr. Speaker, it's a bit of a sore pill to swallow for people who are unemployed and seeing their industries and businesses going down the tube — to see this kind of lavish public spending, this kind of irresponsible junketing by people who happen to occupy cabinet chairs at the moment.

So what we're saying to the government is: "Clean up your act. Get your priorities straight. Recognize the obligation that we all have to provide to people first, not to ourselves." Certainly the incidents I've outlined are beyond question; they're a matter of public record. We say they're

[ Page 7021 ]

classic and shabby examples of excessive behaviour by this particular government, Mr. Speaker, and we're arguing as persuasively as we can that the government should change those priorities and start understanding the regional needs of people throughout the length and breadth of this province.

There are all kinds of examples of cutbacks and destroyed programs in my riding and many others, and I'll be referring to them and talking about them more specifically when we get into the ministerial estimates. In the meantime, suffice it to say that this government that used to be a populist, grassroots party — Social Credit — should have a look at itself and try to get back to a day when they really took seriously some obligation to the people of the province of British Columbia.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, needless to say I rise to speak against the amendment and in favour of the budget. I have a few comments, I guess, at the outset with respect to the member who has just taken his place. The member, of course, is from a rural riding like I am, one concerned largely with the forest industry. He does recognize the problem with our North American lumber market, and that's good to see. The member further attacked our priorities, with his rationale being that our priorities were somehow tied to private-sector contracts. The member then spoke of regionalizing our priorities. I guess the only thing I could do at this point would be to refer the hon. member to page 15 of the budget and the Cabinet Committee on Employment Development. I will advise the member, and I'm sure all rural members, that in a riding like mine reforestation and silviculture are my priorities for that cabinet funding. I would advise the member to approach that cabinet committee with his concerns.

The member also said — and this is quite gracious of him that some of our megaprojects are good. It's nice to hear that type of positive support coming from that side of the House. His speech was constructive to some degree, and it's unfortunate that other NDP members, from time to time, don't have his ability to be critical and yet constructive at the same time.

One interesting point that was brought up by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — and I guess it's a concern of all of us who represent ridings that are involved in the forest industry — is the question of whether timber will be a reliable resource for continued revenue in the future. That's a very good question, hon. member. That, my friend, is why we are diversifying. We're diversifying to projects like northeast coal and natural-gas processing plants because we do, as a government, recognize that you, as the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke, and all us who are concerned with the timber industry realize that it is time we diversified. We can't be that dependent on the United States and offshore markets for our lumber resources.

I guess I have to associate myself to some degree with the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and his concern about the RRAP grants. No one likes to see that type of funding cut back, or in this case eliminated for the time being. Its a fair comment. However, I guess at some time or other we have to bite the bullet.

I have one more comment for the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on B.C. Place. There were some budget comments made there, and I wonder if the hon. member could identify for us the figure for that project in this 1982-83 budget.

MR. KING: Do you want me to do it now?

MR. STRACHAN: I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to speak at some other point.

MR. COCKE: Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

MR. STRACHAN: I know the answer.

Mr. Speaker, naturally I rise to disagree with the amendment. With the greatest respect to Your Honour's ruling in accepting the amendment, I question whether or not the amendment is, in fact, an amendment, because it really doesn't amend anything that is in the budget. Of course, the wording of the motion is amended by the words moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), but as we all know, Mr. Speaker, an amendment must alter to some degree the intent of the motion. This is an amendment of style, but I would submit it is not an amendment of substance. However, I guess that does characterize the NDP debate: lots of style but very little substance. It appears to me to be a party falling apart from the middle, which my good friend from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) might refer to as an implosion.

The amendment in itself means nothing, Mr. Speaker. Essentially, it doesn't amend the budget, and it does little more than take up space in Orders of the Day.

MR. LEA: It says nothing and you're speaking against it?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I'm speaking against it. It's in Orders of the Day, item 20, if you care to read it. In speaking against whatever the amendment is attempting to say, I wish to deal with our government's budget, the reality of where we are today, the reality of where we are in the North American economic community and why we are here.

A very interesting thing has happened, Mr. Speaker, in the last 40 years in Canada. As an aside, let me say that as a former Calgarian and a resident of Prince George for the last 16 years I've taken a great interest in watching population increases, having grown up and lived my life to date in two very quickly growing cities. It's a study of demographics. This was further reinforced by my employment at the registrar's office at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George, and later on when I sat as a school trustee. The study of population and population increases became an item to me that seemed to have a lot of bearing on decisions being made by myself as a trustee and as an employee of the college, and was interesting to me just as a resident in two very quickly growing western Canadian cities. I guess "demographics" sounds a little bit cold, so let's use the word "people." I guess it's sufficient to say that people are, in fact, business. That's what all of us in this chamber are all about. We are all members for an area, and we are all members for a particular group of people, on the basis of being a member for a particular group of people that puts us here in the first place. Because of people we draw up budgets, we debate estimates and we pass legislation. People are our business, our reason for being, and they are the force that causes us as politicians to react in the way we do.

It was interesting the other day, when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was speaking, to hear some hon. members making some very unparliamentary catcalls about unemployment in Prince George. The member doing the harping of course doesn't realize that the Prince George

[ Page 7022 ]

employment figure is essentially regional in nature and covers a far larger area in square miles than just Prince George. The member also doesn't realize, of course, that at this time of the year, during breakup, the central interior has a traditionally high unemployment rate as a result of our seasonal forest industry. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Prince George could show very low unemployment figures if there was no one there and if no one had ever moved there, but that is not the case. The population of Prince George has tripled in the past 20 years and our biggest problem now is caused by the success we've enjoyed in the past. Our community, our industry, has participated in the North American boom and we've enjoyed that participation.

I should point out at this time that a great many of our community leaders....

MR. KEMPF: You've never been off the rock. What do you know about it? You've never been north of Cache Creek.

MR. STRACHAN: Could I have some order, please?

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask all members to come to order. The member for Prince George South has the floor.

MR. STRACHAN: When we speak about the tripling of the Prince George population in the last 20 years, I might add that a great many of the leaders in our community, the people who have established industry, the real heart of our economic community, are people who have come from the province of Saskatchewan. They were driven out of Saskatchewan by socialist policies and they don't want to see those policies return. As a matter of interest, there were more people in Saskatchewan in 1938 than there are now. Fortunately a lot of those good, hard-working, entrepreneurial types now reside in Prince George. I guess if the CCF did one thing, they really helped establish the central interior of British Columbia, and we're very, very proud to have all those ex-Saskatchewan types in our central interior.

But on to people in our current state of affairs. Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting factors that all Canadians in any leadership position have to deal with and consider is the population boom that occurred between the years 1951 and 1966. During those years seven million Canadians were born. Of course their ages range now from 16 to 31 years of age, and they account for one-third of Canada's population. They are a wave that has never been seen before and never will be seen again, but the important thing is that they are here.

Our two current Education ministers are aware of this wave that has gone through our public school system and now is into our universities, and I'm sure the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who has just arrived, is also aware of that population wave. That group of Canadian citizens — that one-third of our population born between the years 1951 and 1966 — have played a very important role in past budgets and will play an important role in future budgets. This wave in our Canadian population has caused us to build schools and community colleges; it has caused our moral fabric to change; and it has caused us to change our legislation. I guess an example of legislation before us now, and I won't offend the anticipation rule.... It's obvious as we look at the new Motor Vehicle Act that in fact we are bringing in these motor vehicle changes because we now have seven million extra drivers on the road — those people who are one-third of our population and between 16 and 31 years of age.

This population wave must cause us to examine some hard budgeting realities. Let's take education for example. During the years 1951 to 1966, an average of 450,000 children were born every year. This is contrasted by an average of 275,000 a year born up to that time from the turn of the century and after that date, to date. So given that the youngest of this wave are now 16 years of age and are just about through the public school system, it's fair to point out that we will face declining school enrolments. That, of course, is the case. Further, with the exception of the growing northern communities, one cannot expect a further wave or increase in school population. This same effect will occur in universities and post-secondary education facilities within the next eight years.

We've had a lot of concern expressed in the building in the last couple of weeks about education cutbacks and the quality of education. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has been, I am sure, hosting a lot of these concerned people. That's his job, and I guess we all appreciate that. Our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and our Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) have had the same concern. The BCTF are aware of this population wave; they're aware of the fact that it's passed through our public school system. It's now just at the tail-end of the post-secondary education system and, of course, they're worried about their jobs. That is why they insist on tenure and on a lower class size.

Teachers will not be needed in the future as they were in the past, and one cannot discount that. There are not as many children being born now. There haven't been as many born since 1966, and teachers are in fact an endangered species, I would submit, because there just aren't the children around to go to school. That's one thing we'll all have to be aware of, and I commend to the Minister of Education his hard-line policy in attempting to curtail school board budgets. I think the school board people that I've talked to — and I know many of them — are all in agreement with it. We do have declining populations. We see no sign of a student increase on the horizon, and there's no way that we should just continue to throw money at these buildings that we've used.

Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker The population wave is with us. It's had its effect in the past and will have its effect in the future, but it will not, I submit, affect education. Now, from our point of view, as observers of this population wave and as MLAs, the first thing we have to realize is that if we examine our ages, we realize that we are the parents of this population. I'm sure we're all aware from a biological point of view why we are the parents, but I would have to wonder why there was a sudden increase in fertility during the years 1951 to 1966. It's very simple: economic good times and a strong feeling of security about the future.

From 1951 to 1966 economic growth was at the rate of 3 percent per year. As parents of those children, our incomes doubled during the time we were aged from 20 to 40. Times were good and secure. During those years the only serious international upset was, in fact, the Korean conflict. It was the only international crisis of any significance, and it occurred to an awful lot of parents during that time that this was a good time to have a big family, and they did.

Health and science changed with that wave of children coming on. I'm 40 years old now, and I remember young children contracting polio when I was in primary school.

[ Page 7023 ]

Fifteen years later polio was virtually eliminated. Expectations. We all wanted our children to have the best in health, education and everything the state could provide. And the state did provide, Mr. Speaker; times were good, revenues were up, and the state came through with flying colours.

Some governments were prudent during this health-education wave such as ours in British Columbia, and only provided what they could afford. Others, like our federal government, created large deficits in response to political expectations. However, whatever the cause and whatever the reaction, we can't lose sight of the fact that there are many costs incurred by this population wave that will not occur again. To those of you who are concerned about education, I would recommend that you look this up when you get home and really have a hard look at the number of children being born now and what happened 15 years ago.

Education of course is paramount, but one must look at pediatric care, day care and all the other programs associated with a population of young people who have come and, I would submit, who have gone. In view of this evidence new programs must be considered. I feel the Knowledge Network is an excellent example in that it recognizes not only the sophistication of our technical age but also the leisure time and interest of this population wave.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably B.C. is caught up in the North American economic downturn. It was heartening to hear the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) speak of the forest products downturn and the fact that our largest revenue-earner, the forest industry, is in fact declining. I'm sure all members realize it. If you know anything about the forest industry, hon. members, I'm sure you realize that at about 1.8 million housing starts per year in the U.S. our B.C. economy starts to shine; the 1.8 million starts in the U.S. creates a good market for the central interior or the British Columbia lumber market.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm not wrong: 1.8 million will do it. It will get the lumber at the right price and everything zings along quite nicely, You also know that in fact the housing starts projected in the budget for 1982 are 1. I million, so we are in fact going to have a shortfall. As the market for B.C. forest products becomes stable and lumber prices increase, our manufacturing sector will show a profit. Don't forget that profits mean paycheques.

I appreciate, hon. members opposite, that your amendment means you would buy up closed-down sawmills and start them rolling. What for? That was a very interesting comment that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. You would buy up closed-down sawmills to create an inventory for which there is no market. If the market ever came around, your huge inventory would in fact depress the market further. And how would you pay for the sawmills? Out of general revenue, I would imagine, you would pay for sawmills which would produce a product that nobody wants.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is a spirited fighter for social programs and I quite admire her, at times, when she takes the floor and speaks of her concerns. I can just imagine the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds coming to a caucus meeting and finding out that social programs have been cut to buy sawmills which cannot sell their product except at a loss. I can just imagine the Leader of the Opposition, if he were Premier, telling the member for Burnaby-Edmonds: "Well, we're cutting back social programs to buy sawmills. Now we have to sell the wood at a loss, but it is volume that keeps us going."

The amendment suggests that we subsidize our forest industry and pulp and paper industry. I don't think the opposition members are really serious, you know. It is funny. We are into northeast coal and it is a fantastic development, the biggest development of its kind in Canada. We have the best price and we are providing thousands of jobs now and for the future. Yet we are opposed in our wishes to develop and create jobs by members who present a motion saying they want to create jobs. It is irony. Are we to create jobs or are we not to create jobs?lf you could just tell us that we would much appreciate it. In spite of the wishes of some people who would say that we should cancel job-creation developments, I can assure you that we will not. You can try to grind this province to a halt, but we won't let you. Our program, our budget, our projects are in place for the people of British Columbia and they're going to stay in place.

It has been observed by some members opposite — as they tippy-toe out of trying to make a statement about northeast coal — that they simply want us to renegotiate the deal, a private-sector deal. I have to question what sort of renegotiation they would ask us to enter into next. Would you ask us to open up the southeast coal deal and renegotiate it? Would you ask us to open up the IWA contract with the forest industry? It sounds a little too much like "Let's Make a Deal." If they were government, I'm sure that would be their policy — this let's-make-a-deal government.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: Yeah, let's get to work. That's funny. "Let's Get to Work" on the bumper stickers of Japanese cars. I see that in the parking lot for the NDP members. Does Ed Broadbent know about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got a German car.

MR. STRACHAN: By the way, Mr. Speaker, there was an interesting comment about....

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: Yeah, that was ironic. The workers in Prince Rupert protest the Japanese equipment as they drive to work in their Hondas, look at their Seiko wrist-watches and go home and watch their Panasonic televisions.

The other interesting comment — just peripherally, Mr. Speaker — is that there was some criticism the other day about ALRT and the fact that we haven't adopted the same system that Calgary and Edmonton have. This was from the same group who say "Let's get back to work," realizing or maybe not realizing that, in fact, the Calgary and Edmonton systems use cars and coaches made in West Germany. I think it is hypocritical — and, if you like, ironic — that they would suggest, "Let's get back to work," and continue to buy Japanese cars and West German rail coaches.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: What happened to Railwest?

MR. STRACHAN: It wouldn't work. It wasn't economical.

[ Page 7024 ]

Back to northeast coal. We can talk about B.C. construction forces working on the project.... As a matter of fact, the ALRT cars are being built in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: The motors are.

MR. STRACHAN: Thanks, the motors are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Front and back.

MR. STRACHAN: Front and back, whatever. We'll get to that one later. I'm trying to get into northeast coal.

The Prince George Construction Association has provided an awful lot of big numbers on the amount of Prince George construction forces working on northeast coal, and they really are staggering. As a matter of fact, it's nice to see that type of participation by our B.C. Industry. They are big numbers. All the construction projects are in the millions. Those of you who sit on the Crown corporations reporting committee are well aware of what those numbers are.

Here's a smaller one. I hope the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is listening. One of the things that has intrigued me is that we have to look at all the smaller contracts that are coming up in Prince George. For example, the Canadian National Railroad will increase its workforce in Prince George by 30 percent, from approximately 600 to 900 men, with the advent of northeast coal. I would challenge the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to come to Prince George and walk around with his union brothers on the CNR line, including the hon. former member Alf Nunweiler, and say that we're against northeast coal. It's interesting that CNR is laying off men in all areas of Canada but not in Prince George. In Prince George they're growing for one reason — northeast coal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they handling?

MR. STRACHAN: They're going to be hauling coal, grain, whatever.

I wonder if the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke would be prepared to tell his CPR union brothers that if the NDP were government they would re-examine and open up all export coal contracts such as southeast coal. To paraphrase my Prince George colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), socialist ideals may sound great, but they don't put food on the table. A paycheque puts food on the table; a job puts food on the table. We're providing jobs, and I don't think you can deny that. Those jobs are here in B.C.

I think it's fair to say that no one likes restraint. Sure, it would be nice to keep on spending, but we don't have the revenue. Keynesian economics have suggested that governments should spend and borrow to stimulate the economy. This idea has merit if you borrow for capital purposes, which is what we're doing, but it does not have merit if in fact you only borrow for operating purposes. Our operating revenue can go by another name, hon. members, and that is taxes. These taxes are paid by the citizens of our province; they are the same citizens who elect you and me to this assembly.

Everyone from Beryl Plumtre to John Fryer has tried to compare our restraint program to the anti-inflation program of the mid seventies. They say that our program won't work because the federal program didn't. The federal program of wage and price controls didn't work because everyone was restrained except the government itself. During the years of wage and price controls in Canada imposed by the federal government, that same federal government in fact increased its deficit from $2 billion to $6 billion. That's what went wrong with their wage and price control program.

Mr. Speaker, there is no magic of economics to the restraint program. We, as government, are simply saying to the taxpayer that our government and the municipal and school governments — all taxing authorities — are simply going to take our hand out of your pocket. That's it, pure and simple — no magic, just a move to reduce taxes.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 p.m.