1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(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 help these people in trouble?
Again I reiterate: it's not the typical underskilled people who are unemployed; it is pervading all levels of our society. In my particular riding it is at all levels on the socio-economic scale. It's a sickness and it must be dealt with. These are sad days for Victoria. The citizens of Victoria were told in the throne speech, or led to believe, that there is hope around the corner — "confidence abounds" — that somehow, miraculously, the private sector will do it all for the people of British Columbia. But we all know the statistics say otherwise. The economists on all sides of the political spectrum are saying otherwise, that your policies and economics — the Leader of the Opposition has called it "wreckonomics," and it's so accurate — are leading us down the road to economic oblivion in the province of British Columbia. Now we'll be called negative to talk about unemployment. We are. "There's that second member for Victoria talking about unemployment again." But you know, it's amazing that that Minister of Finance could not mention in his speech the crisis and the problems of unemployment. That is a very, very sad reflection on this government and indeed upon all British Columbians.
The sagging economy of the Victoria region.... Moreover, the government saw fit to reduce the level of financial assistance to those persons who cannot find employment. The logic of this government is quite clear: there is no work in Victoria, therefore why not force the unemployed to move to another region of the province; or better yet, out of British Columbia. If we can achieve this, we will have effectively solved the problem of unemployment in the capital region. That's the philosophy of this government. We've heard the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) talk about Brandon: "Stay away from British Columbia," or, "If you're unemployed, you'd better leave, because we're not going to help you." That's no way for a government to act. And we have thousands and thousands of British Columbians who are currently feeling the ravages of the recession. Yet we can find, miraculously, nearly half a billion dollars to bail out the biggest Socred blunder since the Columbia River Treaty, the BCR-B.C. Coal deal. Quite frankly, that Minister of Finance should have resigned a long time ago
[ Page 3529 ]
over his incapable handling of the finances of this province. However, he will not do that, I am sure.
The underpinning of the Socred recovery package is to attack the less fortunate, the disadvantaged. After all, every individual in the province of British Columbia is going to feel, I believe, in the next few months, the implications of this budget. Again I refer to the economists who are finally starting to come out of the closet to seriously talk about some of the problems that this government is causing the economy of British Columbia.
The government has clearly got a policy of a hands-off approach to economic development. They will not act as catalysts, they will not try to stimulate local job creation programs, they will not try to participate with the private sector in saying: "Look, let's get together and try to have the resolve to try and pull this province around." It's a great prayer, saying: "Let's hope somehow those great multicorporations can bail us out. But if it doesn't happen, dear, dear, we'd better get a bigger carpet and sweep those people under it." That's the philosophy of this government. The statistics indicate it. The bankruptcies indicate it. The unemployment rates indicate it, and the economists now — even Mr. Michael Walker — are saying: "What are you doing?"
We are told that massive cutbacks in government spending will lead to increased investor confidence on the part of the private sector. That's the major pillar of this government's attitude toward the private sector and therefore toward public spending and public participation in the economy. If this is so, then why has the situation got much worse since the introduction of the July 7 budget in 1983? Most metropolitan centres in Canada experienced serious problems during the economic recession. The situation in Victoria was no different. The problem is that while other cities in Canada are experiencing different degrees of economic recovery, Victoria has stagnated.
For example, according to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate for Victoria in November 1981 was 8 percent — 9,000 persons unemployed. For St. John's at the same time the unemployment rate was 11.8 percent, with 9,000 people unemployed. In November 1982 the unemployment rate in Victoria had reached 14.5 percent, with 17,000 people unemployed. During the subsequent months most metropolitan areas saw their unemployment rates and the number of persons unemployed decline. This was true even in St. John's, Newfoundland, where in November of 1983 the unemployment rate dropped to 11.7 percent and the number of unemployed to 8,000. In fact, the situation in Victoria had also improved to the point where the unemployment rate was 13.5 and the numbers of persons without work had decreased by 1,000 to 16,000.
[5:00]
In my estimation, for Victorians and for many British Columbians this so-called recovery is a total illusion. Most recent statistics show that in January of this year the unemployment rate for Victoria had climbed to 16.2 percent and the number of persons without work was 18,000. Yes, hope is about and confidence abounds, and one would have to be blind not to see the wonderful economic recovery underway. I ask that Minister of Finance: where is your marvellous recovery, and how can you look your constituents in the face as you try to tell them recovery is on the way when thousands of Victoria families and British Columbians see no hope and see this government not even trying to address the problem?
Comparing metropolitan areas across Canada during the past two years shows that Chicoutimi, Quebec, the Victoria region, and the Sudbury and St. Catharines–Niagara areas vie for the distinction of being the second most depressed municipal economy in the country. Comparing the Victoria-Vancouver region to the other seven economic regions of the province leads one to the same conclusion. However, it's somewhat unfair to compare the unemployment rates of a metropolitan centre with those of a rural resource-based economy. For example, in some rural areas of the province unemployment is often seasonal, and if the prices for our natural resources are down in world markets, one can expect the unemployment rates to be high.
The disturbing finding is that during the past two years the unemployment rate for the Victoria-Island region is constantly in the top three or four in the province. Moreover, the number of people unemployed in this region is increasing. In September 1983 Statistics Canada reported 32,000 persons out of work in the Island region. In January 1984 the number of unemployed had increased by 10,000 to a two-year high of 42,000 people in the Island region. That's 42,000 people, many of them with families, and there still is no sense of hope from this last budget. The last time there were 40,000 people unemployed in the Victoria-Island region was last February.
Yes, it is certainly clear to the inhabitants of Victoria and Vancouver Island that real recovery has taken. Yes, recovery is certainly on the way here, Mr. Minister of Finance. But of course you don't want to hear these particular problems or these concerns; we all know that. Perhaps these statistics are boring some members of that government. More than likely they're thoroughly embarrassed by them, particularly those last two Socred members on Vancouver Island. Next election there will probably only be one, and, all being well, we might eradicate any semblance of Socred economics on Vancouver Island.
Now let's discuss the Victoria situation on a more microscopic level. The average unemployment rate for building trades in Victoria at this time is 71 percent. That's almost three-quarters of the workforce associated with construction. In January 1983 the average was 60 percent, and we've had an 11 percent increase in unemployment in this particular area in the past year. Where is that great investor confidence that stimulates the construction industry? I challenge the Minister of Finance to tell this House where that great investor confidence is that we've been hearing about since last July. It’s not happening, because the investors know the province of British Columbia is in serious trouble, and that they have a government that is confronting so many sectors of the province that people are being scared off. It is something the Minister of Finance and his colleagues must seriously look into and deal with promptly.
[Mr. Ree in the chair.]
What sort of leadership is this government offering the citizens of Victoria? The truth is, it has abandoned them. It has totally abandoned the citizens of greater Victoria and south Vancouver Island. "Do it yourself, Victoria, but don't turn to us for help." The Minister of Finance admitted a few weeks ago that there seems to be a problem in Victoria. "Yes, there is a bit of a problem, isn't there? I'm not sure whether we want to do anything about it." He clearly said to this House, "We're having nothing to do with it," and down
[ Page 3530 ]
came the budget and there was no indication that this government and that minister has any feeling or any sense that they have some responsibility to those thousands of people on south Vancouver Island.
They say they have more important priorities than job creation and economic development for the second most depressed metropolitan area in Canada: "Our priorities lie in ensuring that our sound business deal designed to give our northeast coal to the Japanese doesn't fall apart." Would it have been too much to ask the government to pump some of that $470-odd million into the second highest unemployment area in the country, instead of bailing out a bad deal that they made? No, they couldn't do that. I would indicate that the citizens of Saanich know exactly what this Minister of Finance hasn't done.
We are at a crisis stage, as I indicated at the beginning of this little discussion. The situation is so serious that in the past week when 15 men were selected from a call-out board of over 700 people to report to work at the Mayfair Shopping Centre, officials at the building trades union felt like celebrating. Seven hundred people went to look for 15 jobs, and those 15 jobs, as I said, were considered to be a celebration. That's how bad it is in this region. Now the government....
Obviously I'm not saying it's a panacea, that it has to spend millions of dollars, but by Jove, there are some programs and problems they can work on and I'm going to suggest some of those ideas in a few minutes.
The reality of the Socred recovery is that it's restructuring the social order, so that finding a job, however temporary, has become cause for celebration. If you get a job just for a day in Victoria, it is an incredible celebration. Work is the essence of life, and without employment individuals are merely atoms, not fitting into the collective whole of society. It is a serious sickness, not only in Victoria and in our province, and the government has a responsibility to take note of what's happening. When Maclean's magazine has to travel all the way to Vancouver to get a true reflection of what's happening in terms of the depression in Canada, that's got to send a message to this government; but it appears to have made very little impression.
In the few moments remaining to me, I want to talk a little about what the government could be doing in economic recovery in south Vancouver Island.
Interjection.
MR. BLENCOE: We'll try, Mr. Speaker. It's very frustrating because the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who occupy the only two Socred seats left on Vancouver Island, aren't prepared to listen. However, let me suggest some ideas.
In conjunction with the private sector — and I've indicated to the Minister of Finance that the Victoria MLAs are prepared to work with the government on this crisis — it's time to develop a coherent and comprehensive regional economic policy. It is time it was done with our side of the House, your side of the House, the chamber of commerce, the labour council — all those involved in the local economy. It can be done. There are other examples where it has been done; it just takes the resolve. Let's perhaps drop some of our differences on some of the other issues and work on behalf of all those people. We need a program that reinforces existing economic strength. Things like our maritime base. We have an Oaklands plant which I've talked about a number of times before in this House. A government report says it's viable, but it talks about worker participation and worker ownership, which unfortunately this government philosophically cannot support.
I think this government has to demonstrate clearly the desirability of having public sector jobs in the greater Victoria area, and there has to be support for the business community and the small business community in this region. I can assure you, we've had many delegations from the small business sector. Many of them were once Socred supporters but now are wondering what's happening to them. A government that supposedly has small business at heart is turning its back on small business, with policies that clearly are taxing them out of existence. During the budget debate when we talk about this amendment I will talk about some of those particular problems.
We need aggressive policy in this region to encourage the consumption of regionally produced goods and services. We need to aggressively promote what we do, especially here in Victoria; encourage business and institutional cooperation in the development of the local labour market; improve the level of transportation services in the area; encourage tourism in shoulder and off-season months — and there are some particular areas there which, if time allows me, I can talk about; promote the development of export-oriented businesses — the Oaklands plant, for example, which the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has spoken about a number of times. Specialty products that many overseas people are demanding — we have a plant here that can start to do it. Special canning and special smoking processes for salmon — that plant could do it, employing 300 to 400 to 500 people if we could ever get it off the ground and if the government would act as a catalyst to work with the private sector and with the trade unions that are involved in that plant. But no, they sit on the report that was written for them, which says that plant is viable. There is a need to identify and nurture the industries for which this area has a comparative advantage and towards which the residents are more agreeably inclined — wood-processing industries, fishing and fish processing, tourism and recreation and cultural organizations. This town is a west coast heartland of cultural organizations. The Tourism ministry should be talking about establishing a west coast Stratford in the city of Victoria like the one in Ontario. We could become the west coast theatre haven for Canada. We want to see that happen, but it needs some initiative. It needs some government support; at least government encouragement. There is incredible potential in this region, but unfortunately it's going untapped. And unfortunately we are not in government to do it. But if we were in government, which we will be in three years, we would be doing that very thing: working with those cultural groups to make this a haven of cultural organizations, to make this the Stratford of the west coast, which can be done.
We need to emphasize our educational institutions. I would like to give credit where credit is due. The government has indeed decided to give $60 million to the University of Victoria. I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance for that particular move. That's a good move. I thank him. There are so many other things that could be done. We need, particularly in this area — and this is an idea that perhaps should be looked at by the Minister of Finance — to create an investment vehicle for the capital regional area. Such a vehicle would provide venture or seed capital to organizations with proposals that would result in expanded employment
[ Page 3531 ]
opportunities. Because of their problems of equity and the length of time before return on investment, the proposals that come from some of the smaller components of the economy in Victoria are often not looked at by the larger banking institutions. There needs to be a serious look at an investment vehicle that could be set up by the provincial government to provide venture capital. This vehicle would provide the local control on area proposals and a channel for community minded investors.
It's a well-known fact that in Victoria we have become people who develop ideas and patent new inventions. That sort of thing is happening in this area, but it's not being recognized. There needs to be a structure built around that kind of invention industry that's happening in Victoria. The government should be taking a look at that and helping those people to sell their ideas not only in Canada but in the rest of North America and in the world. That's a very interesting and creative idea. It's something that perhaps could be looked at, but it may have to wait until we're in government for that kind of unique, novel approach to new ideas.
We have, of course, talked about the high-tech industry. I won't go into detail about that. Suffice to say, we have still to see the results of this great panacea in the Victoria area. We have a company called Dynatek. Who knows what's going to happen. We're still waiting to see that particular project come to fruition; whether it will, we do not know.
There needs to be — and I've talked about this before, and I'm glad the Minister of Finance is here — a commitment to retain public sector employment and their agencies in the greater Victoria area. This is the capital of British Columbia. This is the heart of government of the province of British Columbia. The kind of policies that have been in place in the last two years have started to see many employees being moved out of this area, and that has a great impact on this particular region.
[5:15]
I was talking about tourism and the Stratford concept. All studies indicate that Victoria is probably the one area that all Canadians would like to visit. We have a good reputation, although it is dwindling somewhat with our incredible, depressed economy. People like to visit here. One thing that we haven't tapped is the convention business. This government has promised support for a convention centre, but the Premier has backed out of that promise. He has let down the people of this area. The Minister of Finance is very quiet on this particular issue. The people of Victoria are still waiting for that promise of money for a convention centre. It is a must. It must be built. Everybody is now agreed on where it should go. We even had the CPR agreeing to participate. Boy, when you get the CPR to agree to certain contracts and to believe it can work, then it's economically viable. If this government wants to help do something about the unemployment rate in Victoria, I would hope it would provide the funds for that convention centre as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I've talked about tourism on an annual basis. Unfortunately, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is not here, but I believe there has to be a whole different strategy on tourism. There has to be a more sophisticated and highly aggressive kind of campaign. Washington state is starting to take away some of our business.
We have to develop a more, shall we say, "sophisticated" approach that draws the kinds of attractions that Victoria brings. We have to develop programs that will see Victoria be a tourist destination all year round. For instance, there is no reason that the Minister of Tourism could not get up and start doing something so that the Princess Marguerite could run on an annual basis. We could start to do a highly successful marketing strategy. One of the areas to do that, in the off-years, is the theatre. Those cultural groups and that Stratford-of-the-west-coast thing could be built up in this area and people would come here from all over, particularly from the south of us, using the old Princess Marguerite.
I believe this government, particularly the Minister of Finance and Attorney-General, the last two remaining Socred seats on Vancouver Island, should work with local governments on land-assembly programs, designating industrial areas and working with the B.C. Development Corporation to see that we can bring an aggressive land-assembly and industrial program here. I'm not necessarily talking about unclean industries; I'm talking about labour-intensive industries. There are a number of them here. You would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the small industries that are in this town, Unfortunately, they are in serious trouble. I've talked about the maritime base we have — it’s one of our natural attributes. There are some natural attributes in this region that can start to take care of those 18,000 who are unemployed in the greater Victoria area.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this government to develop a sense of imagination and vision about the future. They don't talk about vision, imagination or future. They don't talk to the 25 percent of the young people who are unemployed in the province of British Columbia and say yes, you will have a job when you come out of high school or university. It has to be our mandate in this Legislature to ensure that future British Columbians want to stay and bring up their families in British Columbia and want to have a future in British Columbia. We are one of the richest areas in the whole world. Yet the attitude of this government. Its restraint policies and its wreckonomics says we are the Philippines.
There is such an air of depression across this province, and you accuse us of creating it. I suggest to you that your policies and strategies have created an air of depression. You've got to pull it out and change your direction. The statistics and the economists are now saying that your policies won't work. They've been tried elsewhere, and they have failed. Human misery is created in that failure. Families break up. Children have no sense of future. It's incredible. Eighteen thousand people in this capital region that we know about are unemployed. At least give us some word from the Minister of Finance and Attorney-General, the last two remaining Socred seats on Vancouver Island, that they care about those particular people, that they care about those 300 to 400 people who are visiting the soup lines and the kitchen at St. Andrews. Let's have an admission that they feel for them and that they're perhaps prepared to work with other people to try to resolve some of these problems.
Let's get together with the federal government, the chamber of commerce. the labour council, various unions, the economic development commission and local councils and try to work out some solutions. We have to have the resolve.
MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I should be suspicious about receiving that kind of warm applause from some quarters in the chamber.
I want to talk about economics.
HON. MR. HEWITT: You're the last guy to talk about economics.
[ Page 3532 ]
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: I'm not surprised at the minister's rather rude remark. I am surprised at the positive response from other areas of the House.
MR. MITCHELL: They all love you, Gary.
MR. LAUK: Not all.
Mr. Speaker, the question of economics has arisen in this House before today. The definition of the word "economics" has been bandied about, changed and redefined. Who invented economics? Who was the father of economics? Was it Adams? Well, that's a recent father of economics. I think the jury's still out on that paternity suit. It could have been somebody earlier, maybe a Greek, or a Roman, or a Parthian, or a Celt; one never knows. Certainly the fathers of modern British Columbia economics have to be Celtic in their origins and their dispositions.
Mr. Speaker, instead of exhuming Adam Smith's grave and giving him 40 lashes in absentia, let's deal with the definition of economics as it is. What is the reality of economics? Economics, it seems to me, other than the nuts and bolts of describing supply and demand and all kinds of observations made from time to time that are largely technical, really is a question of belief. Social Crediters, monetarists and conservatives have their little assortment of beliefs. They carry them around. We call it baggage. They call it inspiration. They call it salvation. They're born-again neo-rightists who believe in a little collection of beliefs. They refer to Adam Smith and other ancient numerologists and astrologers for support in these beliefs.
Let's not blame everything on Adam Smith. I was thinking more of the social Darwinists, like Herbert Spencer. Remember Herbert? I used to go to an elementary school in New Westminster named Herbert Spencer, and it wasn't until I was 35 that I realized what kind of a reprehensible character that fellow was. Herbert Spencer believed in social Darwinism, Mr. Speaker, and the social Darwinists have been trotting about the countryside under various flags and slogans. More recently, in British Columbia, it's Social Credit. They refer to Major Douglas and A plus B sparingly these days, because they have another Major Douglas down in the States named Milton — Uncle Miltie, Dr. Friedman, Strangelove, who has developed his magnum opus....
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: That's Latin. It's not a crude suggestion. It merely means "major work." Milton Friedman's major work on monetarism has been debunked by an Oxford economist group that contains no fewer than two Nobel laureates itself. Milton Friedman got his Nobel laureate for the monetarist theories he presented in his magnum opus, which we now find in current times has been surgically removed by the Oxford group. Now that Milton Friedman should be singing soprano as a direct result of that surgery, we find that the entire North American continent is involved in a vast neoconservative conspiracy to keep it quiet — that operation, that surgical removal of Friedman's magnum opus.
[5:30]
Economics is a question of belief. Milton Friedman fundamentally believed in monetarism. You've heard Reagan and the Premier of this province and the mulberries — the Mulroneys and the rest of the assortment of this little group achieving great power; little intellectually, but great in terms of economic and political power — recite the slogans of the neoconservative. They go back to the fathers of this kind of nonsense, repeated from Adam Smith through to Herbert Spencer and on to Milton Friedman: "Too many dollars chasing too few goods." In other words, the government has printed too much money. Thirty-five to forty years ago Major Douglas told us that the government wasn't printing enough money and suggested that we all print scrip, Social Credit "funny money" to fill in the gap. The modern Socreds, the modern monetarists, represented on that side of the House today, are saying there's too much money being printed by the government. They don't mention, of course, the provincial government; they only mention the federal government. Somehow they believe that this money, this printed dollar bill, represents in itself some intrinsic negative value that is screwing up, if you like, or mixing up, their economics and their idea of what an economic system should be.
They are now in their basement — the Minister of Finance — trundling off the treasury bills every week. It seems that they do not have any idea that that kind of money-printing contributes just as much to inflation as the federal money-printing. Money-printing is irrelevant. The supply of money is irrelevant to inflation — it always has been. The only commonsense attitude to dealing with an economic situation that is affected by inflation is looking at the real problem of inflation, and that's productivity, not money supply. Money supply is hocus-pocus jiggery-pokery. It is garbage. The first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) should understand this: monetarism is rubbish. "Rubbish" is the only word that that hon. member has said in this chamber. She understands that word. It is rubbish. You dial her number and her response is always the same.
Economics is a question of belief, prosperity is a question of imagination. Some of that imagination we've seen from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and other hon. members of this chamber on this side of the House, who have positive, imaginative ideas for job creation in the province. This morning I heard the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) saying: "Where are your ideas for job creation? I didn't hear any of them." Well, I've heard that speech before. He didn't hear any of them, because his hearing-aid was off. Economics is a question of belief.
If you believe in monetarism, and you put in place policies, as this government has and Reagan has, to chase that belief, you can create, I would say, long-term damage to the economy. That's what has happened in Canada and North America as a result of Reaganomics. What has happened in British Columbia in particular is that this government, being fanatics, being cultists, have grabbed the Reaganomics, Friedman's monetarist theories, and they have applied them in British Columbia with a vengeance. The Premier of this province is the Ayatollah Khomeini of monetarism. He is the man, and that is the government, that has introduced this kooky, nutsy, economic theory in its most extreme form. It has brought the possibility of economic recovery in this province to a standstill. When at least some signs of hope are demonstrating themselves in other jurisdictions in Canada and Europe and the United States, in British Columbia it is hobbled. It has been hog-tied by the narrow, fanatical, inflexible doctrinaire programs of the Social Credit government.
What has been the result of their short-sighted, fanatical, cultist approach? Northeast coal. A staggering amount of
[ Page 3533 ]
money has been poured out of the public and private purse into the northeast coal project. As a direct result.... By the way, the irony is that this government marches around saying that government shouldn't be involved in private enterprise. They are getting out of all the things that should be public services, and they are getting into private enterprise — and it has been said before. The classic example of this is northeast coal. Here they are, not just providing infrastructure but also the underpinning, the foundation for the development of the northeast coal project. They have forgotten the basic rule. Perhaps they never knew it in the first place. They did not get out there and sell the coal to the people who use it. They have signed contracts with Japanese steel mills without understanding the nature of the economy of Japan, without knowing through economic intelligence that other countries are selling coal to Japan and what the needs of the Japanese steel industry are going to be. They are holding up this contract, which is nothing more than Neville Chamberlain holding up a piece of paper. It is worthless, unless the Japanese can expand the use of coal from this jurisdiction. All indications are, Mr. Speaker, that they are not. The indications are that Australia has overtaken us, is striding past us in terms of sales of coal from the northeast coal project to Japan. Even the little trickle of coal from China has increased by 40 percent in one year to the steel mills of Japan, and our share of sales of coal — metallurgical and thermal coal — to Japan is falling off like on the edge of a cliff. The Premier of this province, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and other ministers have been travelling around talking about the northeast coal project as if it was a jewel in the crown of this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LAUK: There they go. They still don't know what's happening. They still don't know that their legs have been cut off at the knees. They're applauding. Next year and the year after, the share of metallurgical sales and thermal sales to Japan will drop off even further, because it seems the Australians know more about free enterprise than British Columbia.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: Oh, the banks. The Premier wants to defend the banks all the time, but I'll tell you, he has the same mentality about major loans from the chartered banks of Canada which has placed those chartered banks in jeopardy, and as a result the economy of Canada in jeopardy, because of their foolishness and their beliefs that the inflationary economy of North America and the world would continue ad infinitum, and that they could loan money to foreign countries and to Dome Petroleum without any possibility of the inflationary cycle coming to an abrupt end, as it did in 1981.
It seems this government is absolutely committed to their disastrous direction, to leading this province into disaster because of their beliefs: their economic beliefs; their fanaticism; their cultism; their belief in Milton Friedman and monetarism, which has been effectively debunked and shown to be a fraud. The Oxford group of economists have proven that Friedman fabricated part of the evidence in his major work supporting the monetarist theory. He fabricated the evidence of monetarism to support his theory. And this is what fanatics and cultists do when they believe in an economic theory or a religious theory. They will make it up as they go along, and everybody else will get crushed under that blind, irrational ignorance, that fanaticism that crushes ordinary decent people who want to live ordinary decent lives and have an opportunity to provide for themselves and their families without having to be caught up in whatever fanatical tune is being played by the government of the day.
Economics being a question of belief, I am urging the government to change their beliefs. I am urging the government to believe in the people of the province of British Columbia. I'm urging the government to face reality about the resource industries in B.C., and to face the particular reality that forestry in this province has seen its golden age and will not see it again. I'm urging the government to face that reality and not to pull the wool over their own eyes and therefore the people's eyes, and to face the reality of the distinct probability that forestry will not recover as fully as it was in its golden age but will plateau off into a slow build, if you like, as a resource industry.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
There are other opportunities in this province, if we pull together. The government must cast off its old beliefs and the old masks and costumes of its ancient religion, monetarism. It must look ahead to the new possibilities for British Columbia. If it does not, we'll not only continue to have a hobbled recovery or have no recovery at all, we will have a disaster in this province. We will have a depression in the midst of recovery elsewhere. This government has the opportunity to deal with that in a realistic way.
I see that the Premier in his arrogance is just waving his hand — dismissing what I'm saying with the back of his hand. That kind of arrogance comes from a fanatic. The cultist dismisses everybody else as fools. " Empty-sounding brass," he says to himself. "I know what I'm doing. I'm following the word. I'm following the way of the monetarists." And neither he nor his government has the imagination to realize that the future is not that frightening. They don't have to hide their heads in the sand. Forestry it has come to its plateau of development and prosperity, but that doesn't mean the end of the world. They should face, with imagination, the possibilities of the future. Economics is a question of belief; they should change their beliefs. Prosperity is a question of imagination; they should develop some.
It seems, Mr. Speaker, that this government is so bankrupt in its ideas that it has forgotten the concept of transportation economics in the province of British Columbia and in Canada. Nowhere in the history of Canada has transportation been a totally free-enterprise industry. Nowhere in North America has it been completely and totally a free-enterprise industry. No transportation facility in North America is free enterprise. It never has been and never will be.
Transportation economics starts off on page 1: transportation in Canada, the United States and in Europe is a question of government. It is a question of collective investment from government and private enterprise. It cannot exist in the private enterprise field on its own; it always fails. It is madness, revisionist and irresponsible for the government now to argue that it should divest itself of transportation structures that are under government control to private enterprise, first of all to save the public money, and, secondly,
[ Page 3534 ]
because the government shouldn't be involved in some of these things anyway.
Let's discuss Pacific Stage Lines, or whatever it is called these days. Let's discuss the bus transportation industry in the province of British Columbia for a moment, and discuss what economics are involved. W. A.C. Bennett and other Premiers knew that transportation in the vast area of the province, with a small population, has to be subsidized. When you regulate transportation, as you do in Canada, you give a licence for transportation to a company and you give them the lucrative lines and the loser lines, and one subsidizes the other. In exchange for a near-monopoly to run the bus lines they have to subsidize the loser lines to service the population. That's as old as the first coach that left London for wherever. Transportation has always been a question of regulation, monopoly, subsidy and whatever else: a combination of free enterprise — very little — and government regulation and investment.
[5:45]
The member for Chilliwack, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), and the member for Langley, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) are sitting there. They don't seem to have any interest in defending their constituents' interests in transportation. The first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the minister in charge of transit, is divesting the government of the PCL transportation to private enterprise. She stands up and says: "Gee, there are no bidders on transportation out to the Fraser Valley. Golly, we didn't expect that, did we? There's going to be some trouble with the northern Island lines as well. Golly, we didn't expect that either, did we? But gee, folks, we got a lucrative bid on the Vancouver to Victoria run!" Some surprise.
It is a betrayal of our history and a betrayal of good transportation economics to allow a private enterprise company to cream off the lucrative lines and destroy transportation service to good British Columbians all over the province, and in particular in Chilliwack, Langley and the valley. They're going to shut it down. I'm talking about secretaries, I'm talking about people who work in the downtown core in the lower mainland and who will no longer have the transportation necessary to get to their jobs. This government has privatized not only the PCL but them as well. How do they like privatization now? We're talking about people who are cut off from their jobs and occupations, who live in Social Credit constituencies. I'm talking about the constituency of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). I'm talking about the people who live in Maple Ridge who cannot get to their work if that PCL line is cut off. The actions of the minister in charge of transit are the most blameworthy of all. No government, no matter how right-wing, can take such an irresponsible and fanatical view of public transportation in the province of British Columbia.
Just a few years ago, when the problem of housing in the greater Vancouver district was being raised with this government, ministers on that side of the House were saying: "There's plenty of land in the valley. If you want a cheaper house or if you want cheaper land to build a house, go out there. The opportunity is there. Don't buy in rich property in the lower mainland. That's only for people with money. You go out there." So the secretaries, the computer operators, the machine operators and the office workers started moving out into the Surrey, Langley and Maple Ridge areas to buy their homes. They started paying taxes. They started electing people like the member for Dewdney to municipal council.
At least they had transportation facilities — as meagre as they were — so that they could do that. It brings down the pressure on housing in the core areas.
Who is the cabinet consulting over there? Do they ever talk about the effect of their actions on ordinary people, some of whom — and nobody is perfect — may even vote Social Credit?
Now we have the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), who is a political appointee to the transit authority. He has no interest in transit whatsoever. He sells cars. Here's the right man to join us in the House. The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) knows what I'm talking about. The second member for Surrey has absolutely no interest in public transportation. He wants to sell more cars. He wants the public to build more highways. He wants more asphalt, more centre lines and no buses. The car dealers are once more sacking the temple. In all seriousness, I've got to say something critical about the second member for Surrey, because of what is happening. He is a political appointee, and that's not his fault. Of course he could have refused the appointment, but he accepted the appointment knowing full well that he was a political activist. This government has appointed him, and they deserve the blame.
MR. REID: I do it because I like it.
MR. LAUK: I'll tell you who doesn't like your appointment: the people of the city of Vancouver who need and depend on a public transportation service. They don't like the appointment because of the irresponsible remarks of that second member for Surrey. He's creating labour relations havoc in the transportation service in the city of Vancouver. He's endangering that service to the ordinary people of that city, some of whom vote for the minister in charge of transit. They won't vote for her again, I can assure you, because I'm going to march around that city and remind the people who use the buses — which only occasionally arrive because of the havoc and chaos created by the second member for Surrey....
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Watch your blood pressure.
MR. LAUK: My blood pressure is fine, and you know it.
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, could you ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to get the padded cell ready?
As I was saying, Captain Chaos from Surrey has created the kind of labour-management relations that are a negative example to everybody across the country. If he'd just keep his big foot out of his mouth, perhaps some resolution to the labour-management relations of that situation could take place. You don't have to agree with the union or the management on this dispute, but you have to keep your fingers out of it. When you don't understand labour-management relations, for God's sake, keep quiet. And that's my recommendation to my friend from Surrey. Captain Chaos should take a leave of absence until they sign a contract — that's the first thing. The next thing is, after they sign a contract Captain Chaos should get out of that position. It's a conflict of interest. He cannot represent the political interests and do a good administrative job. He has discredited himself, and he should either resign his seat or resign from Metro.
[ Page 3535 ]
MR. REID: That's called leadership.
MR. LAUK: That's called bonkership.
We're all amused by some of the more bizarre antics of the second member for Surrey, but the people of Vancouver are no longer amused when that directly interferes with their transportation system. Now they're going to cut back service, says my friend from Surrey. Let me tell you something: the city of Vancouver pays more to support its transportation system through its fares than any other jurisdiction in Canada, and you know it. They subsidize — if you like, although I don't like the word....
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey will have an opportunity, if he wishes, to participate in debate. Right now the floor belongs to the second member for Vancouver Centre, who is entitled to it.
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: Well, you've taken worse before, Mr. Provincial Secretary, and you'll take worse again.
Mr. Speaker, the second member for Surrey knows full well that the city of Vancouver pays its freight. But the second member for Surrey and that government know full well that public transportation is always subsidized, and they have enacted, in a negligent way, policies which are a terrible, long-standing disservice not only to the people of the city of Vancouver but to people all over the lower mainland and upper Island as well. It is true. Once you privatize public transportation, especially buses, the private entrepreneur, who wants to make a buck, is going to cream the best lines and abandon the ones he should subsidize. The history of transportation is that if you are going to give a monopoly to private entrepreneurs, they have to take the bad with the good. Otherwise let the whole thing be open and unregulated and there will only be one bus line running about 30 kilometres in the whole province. You are going to shut down the economy of this province. That's the narrow, blind, cultist, fanatical thinking of this monetarist, fanatical government.
Mr. Speaker, I think I've said my piece. I know that at times my remarks this afternoon have appeared to be antagonistic. I know most of you will deny that, but some of you who have very little imagination may believe that I'm being antagonistic towards this government by calling them fanatical, cultist, inflexible, doctrinaire monetarists who are destroying the economy of British Columbia. I wouldn't want those words to be misinterpreted by some people with less imagination, by some people who might say that I'm finding fault unnecessarily with the government of British Columbia. But I will say this: I make these remarks in the hope that the transit planning of this government is collectively got under control by the cabinet, and that they look very carefully at it and consult with the member for Dewdney. Certainly the members for Chilliwack and Langley and people from the upper Island should be consulted in these matters as well. You are destroying an economic feature of the Island and the valley when you cut off transportation services. When you undermine transit in the city of Vancouver, you are putting another impediment — another obstacle — in the way of the recovery of the economy of the province of British Columbia.
MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand here and take my place in the debate against the amendment placed before this House by the NDP. I wish to confirm that the budget placed before this House and the people of British Columbia is the best budget we could possibly anticipate from any government at this time under the present economic circumstances. It will be my pleasure to continue this debate. I notice the time on the clock and ask that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.