[ Page 5333 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 5333

Ministerial Statement

Government aid to Ethiopia. Hon. Mr. Curtis I .. I –– 5333

Budget debate

Mr. Lauk –– 5333

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5334

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5338

On the amendment

Mr. Howard –– 5341

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled liquor distribution branch financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, and the liquor distribution branch's sixty-third annual report for the year ending March 31, 1984.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, whenever the Rev. Father Keith Young comes and leads us in prayer we undoubtedly are headed to a day of great joy and pleasantness in this chamber, and today will be no different. Thanks to Father Young.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll try to have him back often, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

GOVERNMENT AID TO ETHIOPIA

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, several weeks ago a distinguished group of Canadian musicians produced a recording entitled "Tears Are Not Enough." The personalities concerned across the country donated their time and their talent, and I am informed that they have forgone royalties and other financial benefits associated with the production of this recording.

The artists include Anne Murray, Bryan Adams, Gordon Lightfoot, Corey Hart, Paul Hyde, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Oscar Peterson, Mike Reno, Liona Boyd, Burton Cummings and a number of others.

Several individuals, including a number of British Columbians — and I would name Terry David Mulligan, Bruce Allen, Lou Blair and David Foster — then formed the Northern Lights for Africa Society.

Two versions of the recording are in production; one, a seven-inch record, is now available, I understand, and a second twelve-inch record will be on sale at approximately the end of March.

In recognition of this humanitarian effort, initiated in part within this province, the government of British Columbia will make a grant equal to the proceeds of the 7 percent social service tax applied to the sale of each recording of "Tears Are Not Enough." The grant dates from the first sales in British Columbia, several days ago, and it will remain in effect for all sales of that recording for a period of six months from that date. The House might like to know also that all proceeds will be verified through Price Waterhouse, chartered accountants in Vancouver.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping, as the minister was speaking, that I was going to be able to congratulate him on this contribution. I know that the artists, when they undertook this, certainly did it in the hope that governments would show some real recognition of the need to make some significant contribution. I recognize the names of some of the artists, being a country and western fan, and really think that what they did was a good thing and a good way of bringing to the attention of Canadians in particular the seriousness of the situation and the need to contribute.

But as I understood it, I heard the minister say that what the province was contributing was the sales tax on the sale of these records. I think if that is all the province is contributing — sales tax that would never have been earned had the artists not done this work and not been selling this product — then really we're in effect giving them nothing out of the province. Now perhaps, I misheard. As I understand it, we're giving them only sales tax which would not have arisen had they not done this work. I hope I have misunderstood the minister.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. LAUK: One of the difficulties that any government has in Canada, United States and Europe during this particular period of time is developing a kind of budget that will ameliorate some of the hardship people are facing as a result of the economic downturn that most jurisdictions have experienced. Opposition members have elaborated on how we feel that the restraint approach of the B.C. government, rather than ameliorating that hardship, has exacerbated it and added to the difficulties British Columbians are experiencing.

Last year we had a federal election, and there was a general hope that the new government would take bold measures to solve some of our economic problems. We've seen by the Wilson budget that it's more of the same. I'm not sure whether it would be useful for politicians to continue the rhetoric in this country and this province. I would like to be able to throw more bouquets to the provincial Minister of Finance for his budget, but I don't think we can. Recognizing the difficulties in crafting a budget that will in some way help us out of this economic morass, I do not think the budget was imaginative or creative enough. I don't think it was bold enough. As a matter of fact, it wasn't bold at all. As the poet said, between the idea and the reality falls the shadow, in this case the shadow of indecision.

[10:15]

The rhetoric of both parties in this province, the rhetoric of the parties in the federal jurisdiction and in the United States is nothing but rhetoric. We're shouting at each other. Nothing about opposition ideas is any good, according to the government, and nothing about government ideas is any good, according to the opposition. Perhaps we're both right. Because the people out there are living each day in some hope that the political and economic leaders of this province and of the country will come up with some solution to our problems. This budget is a very far distance from doing that. It does not even indicate a new direction that would indicate some hope for the future.

There are difficulties. You have high spending and high taxes. Solutions offered by economists are contradictory and confusing. We could bite the bullet and lower taxes across the board; that would greatly increase the deficit of this province, and there's the worry about how to pay off that long-term mortgage. Another solution would be to raise taxes and cut inessential spending, but we can't in this province. We're locked into major megaprojects. The government itself is locked into an ever-increasing budget, ever-increasing deficits and the exponential growth of debt service charges, the same as we're facing in Canada as a whole.

[ Page 5334 ]

That's why I think it's about time, Mr. Speaker, that the government listened seriously to the opposition's proposal that we have an all-party committee for economic reconstruction. If we continue to shout at each other, if we continue to use rhetoric to attack each other's proposals, the people are the losers. In the long term the whole province will lose.

The opposition concedes that it hasn't got the definitive solutions to our current economic problems, and I say that the budget proposed by the Minister of Finance the other day doesn't have those solutions either. It's more of the same. It's an admission of inability on the part of the government to come up with the bold moves that are necessary to bring us out of this recession.

It is about time that on sober reflection all members of this House considered seriously such an all-party committee. We waited for the budget in some anticipation that perhaps our proposal for such a committee was not really required. But we have fairly and honestly studied the budget proposals of the government. We must as objectively as we can, as British Columbians, say that it doesn't come anywhere near addressing the problems that we're facing in the B.C. economy.

It would be an intelligent and gracious but, most importantly, a responsible move on the part of the government to accept the opposition's proposal for a reconstruction committee. If you want to call it another name, that's fine. Let's not quibble. That committee could have referred to it the broadest possible responsibility for meeting and deliberating and receiving briefs and information, to come up with some bold solutions to our economic problems. If there's a worry that the committee will take too long, the Legislature can of course limit the time period in which it must deliberate and come back to the House with a report. I'm not saying it will come back with the bold measures that we need, but it is the only avenue open to us; it is the only hope open to us, to find the solutions that I'm talking about.

I want especially to plead with the government to reduce the rhetoric. Members on the other side have said that the opposition is negative, that the press is negative, that all they hear are negative responses. The opposition is tired of hearing the government fighting old elections. The rhetoric's floating back and forth — hours upon hours of debate in this chamber, and not one answer for the people out there who are waiting for us to come up with solutions.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. second member for Vancouver Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) says: "Come up with a solution." I'm saying that each member of this House should objectively and seriously consider the proposition of the opposition: that we form an all-party committee to examine in a realistic way the proposals that are out there and come up with solutions.

I thank the House for their kind attention, Mr. Speaker. Because of my foregoing remarks I find myself unable to support this budget.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It was certainly a revelation to hear that member's change of approach from yesterday to today. He must have had a good thought overnight. But I guess that is what has made it difficult to accept some of the suggestions for an all-party committee, for getting together to work out the solutions and so on, because, having said that, he immediately said he could not support the budget. By implication then, that member and all of his colleagues can support nothing in this budget, and they basically said that time and again — that whatever measures have been incorporated in the budget can't be supported.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

I can certainly support many of the measures in the budget and, like any human being, I would like to have seen some of them go further and provide more help and assistance and funding and tax breaks to others. But I also have to be somewhat realistic. Had the Minister of Finance accepted every one of the suggestions for tax cuts, he would have been left with virtually very little revenue. Yet at the same time there is certainly no reduction in the demand for services the government should provide.

I could use this example. I'm very pleased with the assistance being provided to Peace River area farmers through the budget. Naturally the preference would be for an outright grant of more money for complete support because of the difficult times. But I think the Finance minister has had to consider that there were people who took out crop insurance and paid a premium for that protection, and others who did not, and I would be the first to agree that there has to be something done to revise that crop insurance program, because there's only about a 25 percent take-up. People take their own risks. Still and all, one of the reactions that you get immediately, the standard sort of reaction that hits the press, is: "Too little too late. Peanuts. It won't do any good." Yet it is going to help many of those farmers. I'm sure that many of them will appreciate the fact that they can count on a loan through the banking institutions to provide them with the fuel, the seed and the work that they need to do in order to put in a crop next year, and that they will not have to pay the interest and will even get a 10 percent reduction on that loan if they pay it back from this fall's crop. So yes, we do have to hope that they're not going to be that subject to the vagaries of the weather, that they will get a break, and that they will benefit from this particular plan. They won't benefit as much as everyone would like, but it's unfortunate that the one person who stood up and said that it's no good gets reported.

That is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when I say it's always the negative. There's almost $3 million going into that area. That's an estimate of what it will cost to help people. Really, $3 million is nothing to sneeze at. Yet the reaction seems to be.... I would have to wonder at the Finance minister's trying to do what he can to stretch the little amount of money that is available to try and help as many people and present incentives and then just getting hammered with that sort of thing. He must go home at night sometimes wondering: "Why do I try at all?"

We had a perfect example of that in the ministerial statement. He said: "We've tried to give a concession. We've tried to give some encouragement." The immediate reaction he got was: "You gave them nothing."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, you see? The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) says, "That's right, " and then he says: "But we're not really negative. We really do think that anything that is done in a positive way has some positive merit." But you won't accept that; it has to be

[ Page 5335 ]

everything before you will accept any positive merit to it. And then you wonder why we accuse you of being negative.

Mr. Speaker, I know education has received the focus, but let me first of all discuss some of the tax measures.

I've mentioned the assistance to the Peace River farmers, and I'll accept it and say thank you on their behalf. Many of them will appreciate it. Certainly I'm human enough to have wanted to see more faster, and that sort of thing, but I'll at least say thank you for what we did get.

I can say thank you on behalf of my people for the reduction in the off-road fuel tax, because that's a big factor in that farming area. It's going to help those people. It's not going to solve all their problems. This is where the debate often gets — into these extremes. The fuel tax isn't going to solve all their problems, and they know that. Everyone knows that. But the emphasis seems to be that unless any one individual measure solves all the problems, then it's no good. I can't accept that. I think the good is built up, often, in little bits and pieces and cumulatively they do have a benefit.

The water rental tax is going to be a benefit to many people. Certainly it hasn't been reduced, and it hasn't been removed. The government, if they removed all of these sources of revenue, would also have to cut back on the services or go to that NDP philosophy of borrowing and not worrying about how you pay for it, hoping that sooner or later some magic wand would happen. But it hasn't happened anywhere. Everywhere that that philosophy of borrow and borrow more has gone into effect.... I'm talking basically about operating expenses and....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, but let me put that in perspective then, Mr. Member. You are saying that the government should have reduced taxes more and that would have helped. At the same time your members are saying that they should have increased funding to education, increased funding to health, increased funding to everyone. So what you're basically saying is that you should take in less money as a government but that you should continually spend more money as a government. That has to represent deficit financing.

Yes, we've all been into it. Every government in this country has been lured into spending more than it was taking in, for whatever reasons — some of them certainly political I reasons. If you didn't do it, the other party promised that they would. So we've gotten into that worldwide, not just in Canada. Then we wonder why, when we're paying a third of every tax dollar in Canada on interest, we don't have money to pay for the services. If anybody mentions cutbacks or reduced spending, that, of course, is a no-no. "Not in my back yard. Do it somewhere else. Get the money from somebody else, and cut the spending on somebody else, but for goodness' sake, never in my area."

The small business employment tax credit. One of the members scoffed at that because of the little amount. But it has a cumulative effect over the province of some $75 million per year. That has to be beneficial. Maybe it doesn't solve the whole problem, but certainly it has to have a positive aspect. I would like, sometimes, for some of the members on the other side to say: "Look, there is a positive aspect, even if I don't accept the thing as solving all of the world's problems." To suggest that somehow a committee could get together and put all of this in and come up with the plan as to how to spend more money while taking in less...that somehow or other somebody could actually come up with that....

Machinery and equipment. Everyone is familiar now with what is in the budget. The cumulative effect is quite significant, and I think it will create some real jobs. So I can't accept that it doesn't do anything for the unemployed. It will create some real jobs. We cannot continue to spend more money in government to create temporary jobs, which, in effect, take out of the economy rather than put into it. That's an illusion that we create and that illusion ends up costing us a fortune in the long run.

[10:30]

Certainly some of the measures are not that significant in terms of dollars, but I can tell you one measure that is very significant, one which shows how the minister listened. It was a source of annoyance and also created a lack of business opportunities for some of our people in the area. That's the exemption at the point of sale for automobiles. That may not be a big factor here but we have car dealers in our area who can sell vehicles to the Alberta side. The net cost to those buyers is no different. The way it was, they had to pay the tax when they bought the vehicle in British Columbia, then they had to go back to Alberta, register it there and then apply for the tax rebate. Rather than go through that annoyance of having to put up the money and then wait to get it back, they bought their vehicles in Alberta, even though they preferred, say, a Fort St. John or Dawson Creek dealer.

The net change in revenue to the government is not significant, but it now means that those people can document their vehicle as being registered in Alberta. It can be exempt from the tax when they buy it, and they don't have to put up that money and then claim it back later. That will mean vehicle sales and fleet sales for some of the dealers in my area, and that means business to those people. So the minister did listen and did come up with something that is no change in actual finance to the government other than that I'm sure it will assist those industries and provide some indirect benefits.

So those are the sorts of things that do help, and it is another small positive. Certainly if you want to be a critic primarily, you can say: "Well, what does it do for the economy? What does it do for the provincial revenue?" It doesn't do anything for that. But it certainly does something for that individual. You get a million individuals who are going to benefit from something or a hundred thousand people who are going to get jobs as a result of this, and the total benefits to this province are going to be immense.

I'd like to switch to this aspect of education and relate it to the budget, in that we've heard quite a bit in this budget discussion about the disastrous effects that it is having on education. That has to be one of the best-done propaganda ventures in this province today. It really is remarkable how emotionally charged, unsubstantiated statements can become almost as though this is what the facts are.

Let me read to you a few passages from a letter sent out by the new president of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. I could read you the whole letter and it says absolutely nothing in terms of fact. It does not say anything at all, but it s a beautifully done propaganda document calculated to incite the troops. It's the standard propaganda weapon that has been used in various parts of the world — yes, by dictators, by anyone. It's a nice device, and it's to fire up the troops.

[ Page 5336 ]

You have statements like this: "That I do so now is a measure of the gravity of the situation we face." Nice clichés. Another one: "We face a threat of unprecedented magnitude. The quality of education, the rights of students and of teachers are so seriously imperilled that I feel it essential.... The threat is not just to us as individual teachers or to our students. The viability of the public school system and the very existence of our professional organizations are in jeopardy."

Now I ask any thinking member in this chamber: what has he really said to this point? I'll go on with these quotes. "The sacred trust of public education is in our hands." Now that is enough to fire up anybody, because spending 28 years in the educational system.... Think of this: "The sacred trust of preserving quality education is in our hands. Unite brothers; we must unite and fight. That's the strategy."

"Our strategy must be to fuel the momentum of the pro-education movement." By implication, of course, anybody who talks about dollars is anti-education. "We cannot do that if we are underpaid, demoralized, perpetually besieged. The challenge before us is a formidable one. The campaign will focus on the injustices...."

Not one substantiated fact in the whole thing. Now let me give you what the facts are in British Columbia. This is what this is referring to, this disastrous calamity that's happening according to the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I will reiterate time and time again that most teachers in this province really want to teach students as well as they can, to the best of their ability, and they'd rather stay out of all this sort of thing, but they don't have any choice. They're fired up, they're inundated with this stuff time and again, and if they dare think as individuals they are intimidated.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Here is what has happened in fact. In 1982 the pupil-teacher ratio was 17.11 pupils per teacher; in 1983, 17.08; in 1984, 17.73: roughly one-half of a pupil per teacher increase in the provincial averages. That is destroying the educational system? I think most people can understand those facts. At the same time, the cost per pupil.... Remember, we're saying that education is being destroyed by lack of funding. At the same time, the facts are that across the province the average operating cost per pupil in 1982 was $3,206; in 1983, $3,263; in 1984, $3,346. So there has been an increase in operating costs per pupil, and that of course was funded by the taxpayers of this province. So they have paid more for each student in those years. There has been an increase of half a student per teacher across the province, and that is what those emotional statements are referring to, about destruction of education. They've got the opposition all on that side.

The average annual teacher's unit salary in 1983 was $34,000; in 1984, $35,329. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Have you not heard...? I can see why students, school boards and the public would be highly incensed with the fact that they're told that the classes are going to go to 40 and 50 pupils. There is absolutely no need for that. In all of the checking that I have done — unless it's by design somewhere that I haven't heard of — there have not been any classes anywhere near that size. Those class averages are down. I checked it for my district and for several other districts. Most of the classes are under 25. For elementary class size, the provincial average is 23.6 students — almost 24 students; at the secondary level, 24 students. When I have found a large class of 35 — the largest class in the district — it was, say, a phys-ed class, or in some situation where they timetabled.... Being fairly familiar with timetabling.... Sometimes you run into these anomalies. But there is absolutely no excuse in this budgeting system for classes of 40 and 50.

You had a situation in Vancouver of student protests. Well, I don't know all of the particulars, but from what I gathered the students in that school were all called into the assembly and told: "They're going to destroy us. We're going to have all 40 and 50 in our classes next year, but be reasonable. And we've got to turn the heat off" — which is one percent of their cotton-picking budget. So they turn the heat off, and say: "Well, you must wear your coats to classes. And remember that we're going to have 40 and 50 students next year." And so the students.... Believe me, I was there. I could have incited a riot any time by just saying a few things — and some people happen to know that. So what did the students do? They hit the streets with protest banners, saying: "We're not going to have 40 and 50 students in our classes. We're going to have heat in our classrooms." None of those were necessary. None of those were correct. Then the audacity of that principal to stand up publicly and say, "I'm saying to the students: 'Now you must not react this way; you must act in moderation; you must do that,"' after having incited them. That's the kind of thing, and some of the protest that we have, and some of the stuff that's being fed to parents and to school boards to incite them and suggest that this is destructive. It is not.

We believe in quality education on this side as well. As the Minister of Education has said, we could go up to 19 pupils. I was there for many years, when there were 19 pupils, and I will not accept that we were not providing quality education at that time. We had teachers who were committed to it, and we could handle those. And we didn't have so many supernumeraries, and we didn't have all of these other ways of spending the budget. We kept it in the classroom. I did that as a principal: I organized and kept people in the classroom, rather than in these other positions to bring up the class sizes.

I guess the experiences we've had are basically the ones that we've been through. But I can tell you that I've talked with other principals who said: "My gosh, I've got 35 pupils in a primary class." I'll be honest with you; I used to say to them: "You don't deserve your pay as a principal if you allow 35 pupils in a primary class. Reorganize the school. Do something about it." There's absolutely no need under a 17- or 18-pupil-per-teacher ratio in this province for any primary class to be at 35. That's mismanagement, as far as I'm concerned. You can't blame the government or the taxpayers or the funding formula for that kind of mismanagement.

I have to say that some of that has to be politically inspired. I guess politics creeps in. I'm not talking necessarily about partisanship, but it's certainly politically inspired.

Just to wind up a little bit here on education, we had members on the opposite side saying how our universities are going to hell in a basket — as some other member said — that the funding is destroying them, and that pupils are not registering in the universities. Then we have the figures. We have all those emotional statements, and then we have the facts. There were in 1979 just over 29,000 grade 12 graduates; in 1984 that had gone down to just under 27,000. So that's at least 2,000 down in the number of graduates in the province.

[ Page 5337 ]

At the same time, when you add up the people who registered in academic courses and non-vocational courses in colleges and universities, the enrolment had gone up from 8,000 to over 10,000. In other words, the total number of pupils graduating from high school had gone down, and the number enrolling in universities had gone up. Yet we're told that our universities are being destroyed and that there's no opportunity for enrolment. So it went up, if you like, from 43 percent — in round numbers — in 1979 to 54 percent that are enrolling in non-vocational courses. And then you can throw in the Knowledge Network and some of these others, and you have, really, more people getting an education. A quality education, I still maintain, does not depend entirely on how much money you throw at it; it depends on attitudes.

We're accused of teacher-bashing, creating a negative climate in the classrooms and so on. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the budget or the people who are creating it that.... It is the people with the vested interest in trying to get their positions secured at the top organizational level that are fomenting that dissent in the classrooms. It's not the funding that does that. We had many happy teachers with less funding; we had happy teachers with more funding. Primarily I think it's a matter of attitude. When people are constantly stirred up, yes, it creates a problem. But I don't think they need to be stirred up.

[10:45]

In one of my MLA reports I did point out that the teachers' organizations say that quality education depends on how much more money you put in. They said: "We need more teachers in the classroom. We need to keep those pupil-teacher ratios down." Yet at the same time, when it came down to the crunch and the Minister of Education said: "There is a finite amount of money available. Which way would you like...?" He didn't say this, but if you take it in salary increases, then it has to come out of some other place. You cannot continually assume that if you take it in salary increases there will be more to do everything else.

Teachers had the choice of holding their salary levels and retaining those people in the classrooms, or going for a raise. They said: "No, thank you, we will take the raise, but we want the government to put in more money to keep those other bodies in the classroom." In other words, their stated objective is one thing, but when it came down to the choice to be made personally, they said: "We'll take the increase and blame the government for not spending more money." They can't have it both ways. That's, I guess, where we really are in general terms.

We have some of the most interesting discussions from that side. A speaker, even in the same speech, will stand up and blame the government for not spending enough money: we've got to spend more here, there and everywhere. In the same speech you blame the government for having the taxes too high, Now is there some magical money tree that some one still believes in? I think we have to be honest with our taxpayers and say, yes, governments can give you everything and anything that you want provided you are willing to pay for it out of your other pocket. When we get to that point and tell the people that, then I think the people make those decisions.

They scoff at tax incentives; they blame the government for taxing too highly; they blame the government for borrowing money, and at the same time they say that the government must spend more than they are taking in. So help me, I have some difficulty in putting that together.

I think what we really need in this province is some belief that real jobs — jobs where people are producing things that sell.... It's one thing to say, "Try and put jobs out there, " but if you are not selling the products, that job is going to disappear in a very short time and end up costing society, governments and — indirectly — the taxpayers a lot of money. Job creation has to be in something that you produce and that you can market. If we accept that, then the people who can do that best are the private sector. They can create those jobs whose continuance depends on their ability to market those goods, not on their ability to pass laws or regulations. That's where it really happens, and that's where I think it should be happening. Jobs that government creates, in many cases, cost the taxpayers; the jobs that the private sector creates generate revenue to the government to continue the services that we're all in favour of.

Quality education and revenue to government do depend on what the private sector can create, what initiatives can be provided. And because we're in competition with other jurisdictions, we have to provide some incentives and initiatives to get those industries here. Once they're here they can be producing.

I guess what we need most of all in this province is a positive attitude. We would like to have.... Let me use Expo as the example. We now have recognition from many countries around the world who are coming here to put their money on the line, to put up their displays and to market their wares. They seem to believe that Expo is going to attract a lot of people to warrant their investment there. Someone mentioned that we can't directly guarantee that it will break even at the gate, but I would suggest that it has a much better chance of breaking even at the gate if just once some of the critics would turn around and say: "Hey, it's on its way. It can do things. It's going to be great, and let's all get together behind that." Whether it's Expo, the farming industry, the mining industry, the logging industry or whatever, if we could just say: "Okay, there are loopholes, there are weaknesses, there are problems, but here's something positive that may and can happen, and let's boost it...."

Put yourself in the position of someone in a foreign country who is reading a British Columbia newspaper. If the headline says, "Expo is great. Expo is go. Expo is going to have wonderful displays," you would be far more inclined to come to Expo than if it reads: "Expo to fail. Expo to lose money. Expo won't work." I maintain that those critics who, for whatever partisan reasons, keep hammering that it won't work are doing the damage, almost as though with a masochistic tendency, hoping desperately, because it's this government that is pushing Expo, that it will fail; and they will almost do everything possible to make it fail. They mouth the objection that "Oh, no, we support it," but at the same time they're doing whatever they can to discourage people, to make it more difficult to attract people.

If we could just get people believing in this province, believing that these incentives are going to work, you will find people investing their money. You will find people willing to travel, willing to see some of the things that are in his province. Certainly in my capacity as Minister of Parks there are many beautiful things to see. Our parks system is one of the best in the world and will attract a lot of people. I would like those sorts of positive things put out there rather than the negative things that tend to distract from success. Success is partly a matter of attitude, not just numbers and

[ Page 5338 ]

predictions by economists. If people believe something is going to succeed, it will succeed.

MR. GABELMANN: Lyndon Johnson once commented on a Congressman whom he suspected of having room temperature IQ — Fahrenheit, not Celsius — that the man couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. Listening to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, I'm reminded of Johnson's comments.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Thank you very much.

MR. GABELMANN: You're welcome.

The comment also came to mind when listening to the Minister of Finance present the budget. One of the problems with the government is that it is unable to do more than one thing at any one time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Be positive!

MR. GABELMANN: I'm being very positive, Mr. Speaker. I'm saying that the government can do one thing at a time.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing had his opportunity to stand in the debate. Would he please be quiet.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I could have been critical of the Minister. I could have talked about Celsius, not Fahrenheit.

As I was saying, the government has an ability to do one thing at one time, but never an ability, it seems, to do more than one thing. When it was time, in their minds, for restraint, we got restraint and nothing else. Now that they perceive those days to be over, they are on to a new tack: corporate tax concessions, and nothing else. Again a one-track government, unable to do more than one thing at one time; or, as Lyndon Johnson would say, unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my comments I intend to present, on behalf of the official opposition, an amendment. The amendment will suggest that the budget fails in a number of major regards. It fails in having any impact on reducing unemployment. It fails to develop or propose any policies or plans to keep up with the influx into the labour force of 20,000 new people each year. It fails — and here it fails absolutely — to create any proposals or plans for new long-term employment to reduce the staggering unemployment levels in this province. I'll deal with that in more detail later. In addition, it fails to deal with the crisis that exists in education and in human services. Finally, it fails — and here again it fails absolutely — to control an out-of-control and increasing debt, both direct and indirect. Our amendment, which we will focus on in today's debate, will suggest that this budget has failed to address all of those critical problems here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the policies of the government obviously don't work. They haven't created jobs and there's no indication that they will. The policies have not created a climate conducive to investment or to consumer spending. If we want to accept the model set up by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour yesterday — which I don't entirely — that we have a choice of consumer-led or of investment-led recovery, the government's policies do neither. At least we are proposing that we put more emphasis on consumer-led recovery and try somehow to tap the savings of British Columbians. But the budget does neither that nor the other.

The policies over the years, and they are continuing in this budget, have created unprecedented poverty, unprecedented unemployment, unprecedented insecurity — and unprecedented soup kitchens and soup lines. I hear a member suggesting that what I'm talking about is gloomy. You bet it's gloomy to stand in a soup line or to stand waiting for a bag of groceries because your welfare rates are so low that you ran out a week or two before the next cheque. Do the members on that side suggest that we should stand here Dale Carnegie fashion and talk only about how great things are, when they're not? It is gloomy out there for many people, and I want to talk about the extent of that gloom that pervades our society.

There are about 1.4 million eligible wage-earners in B.C. Unemployment figures from StatsCan suggest that 16 percent of that number are unemployed. I wonder how many members, Mr. Speaker, have looked carefully at these numbers. Last month 226,000 people were in receipt of UIC. About 1 percent are on for health or maternity reasons — not a very large number. If you take that 226,000 in receipt of UIC as a percentage of the number of people in the workforce, you have 16 percent. So when Statistics Canada tells us that the unemployment rate in British Columbia is 16 percent, that figure is only those people in receipt of UIC. The 16 percent does not include the 108,000 people who in 1984 had their UIC benefits exhausted — the so-called "exhaustees." Many of those people went onto welfare. Many went home to live with extended families. Many have been lost in our system. Some of those people did find work, no question about that. But there were 108,000 in that category. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have in total numbers about 270,000 people in receipt of social assistance in British Columbia. Of that number, about 130,000 are adults, of whom probably somewhere in the order of 100,000 would work were there jobs available.

[11:00]

There are 100,000 people; there are up to another 100,000 people who have exhausted their UIC; there are, and we all know them personally, countless thousands of others who have given up looking for work — the so-called "deeply discouraged" — and who may have in their family another wage-earner and therefore are not counted in any of the statistics. We have uncounted numbers of young people who still live at home. I wonder how many other members have noticed as I have in traveling around their ridings — as I've noticed in mine — the number of 25- and 28- and 30-year-old children living at home, not counted in any of these numbers because they're being supported by their families. I wonder how many members have noticed the number of people who are cashing in their RRSPs, who are selling an extra car or a sailboat or things that they've acquired over the years, in order to survive. They are not counted on the social assistance rolls or the UIC rolls, and many of them are not counted on the exhaustee list either.

Mr. Speaker, it's difficult if not impossible to determine the exact number of unemployed in British Columbia. You have to make a number of assumptions. In suggesting what I

[ Page 5339 ]

think the real unemployment rate is, let me make one assumption: that if every person between the ages of 15 and 64 who was able to work and who was not going to school and wanted to work was counted as being part of the total workforce, we would have an unemployment rate in British Columbia of 30 to 31 percent. Almost one in three British Columbians who could work is now not able to work. And yet we get lulled into the numbers. I remember when 5 percent unemployment was considered high because 3 percent was considered the right number. Then the numbers drifted up, and now we're blase about 16 percent. But let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, the 16 percent only includes those people in receipt of unemployment insurance. The actual figures are well into the twenties, and if you include the potential that every person has to contribute in our society, the number is more likely to be 30 or 31 percent unemployment in British Columbia. I am not making these numbers up; I spent some time working them through. That is a tragedy beyond comprehension. Those numbers are staggering. They're numbing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) said in effect: "Where's the money going to come from?" If we had full employment in this province, there would be literally billions of dollars of additional revenue — an absolute guarantee of at least two billion and probably three billion dollars of extra revenue, and at the same time a reduction of somewhere around a couple of billion in expenditure. We could produce an extra five billion dollars — in round numbers — in terms of net revenue to the government simply by having full employment. Why isn't full employment the target of this budget? Why isn't full employment the target of the government? It has been easy over the years to talk about dealing with inflation and, as the former Prime Minister said, "wrestling inflation to the ground." The government in this province has set up programs to attempt to reduce wage increases. Those have been accomplished because the government was determined to accomplish those goals. Why don't we pursue the goal of full employment with the same vigour? What's wrong with full employment? Is that a left-wing idea or something? Other countries can do it, and I'll talk about that a bit later.

What is there in the budget to inspire confidence? What signals are there or what initiatives are there in the budget that will begin to free up the $36 billion worth of savings in this province? People aren't going to spend it all, but my God, if they spent 10 percent of it we'd put hundreds of thousands of people back to work. No incentives, no encouragement, nothing whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing but gloom and doom.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the member again says: "Nothing but gloom and doom." I invite that member to go down to Christ Church Cathedral, spend some time with the people in the lineup there and come back and say the same words again — that it's nothing but gloom and doom. Of course it's gloom and doom. Do you know what it's like out there, Mr. Member?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, would you mind curtailing the babbling member?

One of the impacts that we don't talk about very much.... We talk about the economic consequences of unemployment and the economic consequences of the acts of this government, but we don't talk about some of the other things that happen. When people feel threatened, when they feel insecure, when unemployment rates are high, when education is cut back, when English-as-a-second-language programs are insufficient and when human rights are downplayed, racism and intolerance grow by leaps and bounds. We're seeing evidence of that all over this province now, Mr. Speaker — the kind of racist comments that are being made, the kind of racist intolerance that's being shown. We see it and hear it everywhere. We see it in schools, we see it in sawmills, we see it throughout our society. That too is a condemnation of the economic policies of the government.

I've talked about some of the numbers. I've tried to portray the immensity of the tragedy. What has the government's response been over the years and through this particular budget? For years now we've had the megaproject strategy — whether it's the Revelstoke Dam, northeast coal, rapid transit, Expo or B.C. Place, all of which have been capital-intensive, all of which, no doubt, have produced some jobs. They're not labour-intensive programs but all capital-intensive programs. Billions, literally billions, of dollars are spent and unemployment levels are continuing to grow. It's officially at 16 percent but more likely in the 25 percent to 30 percent range.

The private sector is to be responsible, says the government, for job creation. To achieve this goal, the minister announces in this budget millions of dollars in tax concessions. Not a single concession granted is tied to a guarantee of jobs. The members over there want us to be positive and to applaud what they do. The government only has to say certain tax concessions will be granted in exchange for a certain number of jobs, and that applause will be forthcoming. We would be delighted to applaud those kinds of moves.

But instead we have $1 billion worth of tax concessions over three years and not a single job guarantee out of it. A hope and nothing more, Mr. Speaker. There are no guarantees whatsoever. There are no guarantees that that money, apart from being used to pay for debt that many of these companies and corporations have encouraged, won't be used for further acquisitions so that companies can continue to gobble each other up. If the government wants us to applaud, then they should give us something worth applauding. Tie those concessions to job guarantees.

Tax incentives, Mr. Speaker, by themselves, according to a 1980 Canadian Tax Foundation study, are neither efficient nor effective in achieving most of the objectives for which they are supposedly introduced. That statement was made some years ago. The government does not seem to have understood that. That's not some left-wing organization. That's the Canadian Tax Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the other side the blame that social spending is the cause of the rising deficits, yet our social spending has gone down when you compare it to inflation, which you need to do. The cause of the deficits has been because the government hasn't followed a full employment strategy. That's what has caused the deficits, tied in, of course, with the fact that billions of dollars are going into capital-intensive megaprojects.

[ Page 5340 ]

Mr. Speaker, a joint economic committee of the U.S. Congress reported that post-secondary institutions and the availability of skilled workers are among the most significant factors attracting investment. Quality education and skilled workers: the most significant factors attracting investments. Where is the understanding on the part of the government of that particular fact?

The level of funding to colleges and to universities has been reduced and the Minister of Universities suggested we can get our skilled workers from outside this province. They do not understand basic economics in their own system, in their own so-called private enterprise system. Even members of the U.S. Congress can understand that.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance the other day justified underspending in education by stating that the aging population requires more for health care, and he seemed to imply by that that what we were doing was reducing education and increasing health care. Yet both are reduced, when again you compare it to inflation. Both of those expenditures are reduced. In fact, where additional money is going, 24 percent in this case, is to social assistance payments, because of the failure of the government to pursue a full employment strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada reports that in spite of dramatic increases in 1983 B.C. exports — this is back in 1983, and that trend continued in 1984 — the poor economic performance in B.C. was due to Socred restraint policies which reduced demand, created enormous uncertainty and discouraged consumer spending and discouraged private investment. Yet in spite of this from the Conference Board of Canada — yet another agency which I cite that has no left-wing leanings or connections — the government persists in its policies which have demonstrably proven a failure in the last number of years.

Why don't we look elsewhere to see what other people have done? Other members of this House have cited other jurisdictions. I wanted to cite two that haven't received very much attention in these comparisons. The economy and the government that I think deals with this whole question best in the world is Austria. We don't hear very much about it.

[11:15]

When the Austrian unemployment level reached 3 percent, Mr. Speaker, the government declared it had an emergency on its hands and needed to develop employment strategy, and they did. They launched an extensive job-creation program when the level reached 3 percent — not 16 percent, or, more likely, the 25 percent or 30 percent that it is in B.C. Their approach involved a number of initiatives, some of which in isolation have been picked up on by the government, but not as part of a package. In Austria, their approach was to offer public support for research and development; expenditures for road construction, which we see here in some ways; support for the tourist industry; and money into housing, an area that's been totally neglected by this government. They offered interest rate subsidies for small businesses and income tax deductions for capital investment in industry. Regions with higher unemployment in Austria were given special consideration for construction projects. Is that the route taken here in British Columbia, when you look at the unemployment rates in some parts of this province, and no government activity whatsoever? In Austria they decided that they needed to take that kind of regional approach. Available funds for export promotion were increased. Full employment was the core of the government policy. They decided, when unemployment reached 3 percent, that they had an emergency. We in this province, with up to a third of our potential workforce not working, have yet to recognize that we have more than an emergency; we have a catastrophe upon us.

The opposition members, in this debate and during the throne speech, have offered a number of suggestions that should be undertaken by the government and would be undertaken by an NDP government. The list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. We will continue with those suggestions during the course of debate on the amendment, which we will come to when I move it at the end of my comments. We will continue to suggest these various ideas and programs throughout the course of this legislative session. I want to just mention a few of them as I wind toward a conclusion of these comments.

We need some real tax reforms that deal with personal income. We need tax reforms that would redirect existing funds to those with greatest need. Income tax credits for low and moderate-income earners would allow them needed cash. These earners spend most of their incomes in small businesses, and it is in small businesses that new jobs can be created.

As I said before, tax concessions must be tied to guarantees of job creation. A cooperative approach to economic reconstruction will help to create that kind of stable investment climate. Cooperation and partnership does not mean developing a program and then announcing it in a neighbouring theatre. That's not how you develop partnership. Partnership is when two people sit down together and jointly work out a proposal or program, not when one of the partners does it and then thrusts it on the other. That's not partnership at all, Mr. Speaker; that's continuation of confrontation.

The same thing applies to the labour market. In Sweden, labour and management can get together under the government's auspices and work out proposals to use money that might otherwise have gone into profits or into wage increases and jointly allocate that money to job creation, when their unemployment rate reaches 4 or 5 or 6 percent, which they consider to be a crisis. Can you see that happening in B.C. under this government? It wouldn't, because this government would develop the proposal, announce it and then expect everybody to participate. It just doesn't work that way, Mr. Speaker.

What incentive has there been for employee cooperatives when they've been suggested in varying parts of this province and in various industries? There has been no assistance that I can see from the government.

There is some mention in their budget of support for aquaculture and mariculture. If that support is as extensive and as developed as it needs to be, then I welcome that. We've been arguing for that for years on this side of the House, and finally we see some mention of it in the budget. I'm delighted about that. That should be a major industry on this coast.

Research and development go hand in hand with universities that are world-class. We're in danger of not having any world-class universities in this province.

Importantly, reallocation of funds to forestry must be among the highest of the government's economic programs. Money into a road is fine, but it doesn't produce as many jobs now, nor does it produce as many jobs forever, as similar dollars in forestry. If we spent the $300 million that we should

[ Page 5341 ]

spend every year on silviculture, we'd be creating 2.5 million person-hours of work right now — just for $300 million worth of investment, not expenditure. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) made this point very well yesterday, and it's a point I agree with: some things are operating and some things are capital. When you invest in the forests, that's a capital expenditure and should be viewed that way, because it's an investment and the value of the resource is enhanced. A byproduct of that could be the development, immediately, of literally millions of hours of work. The work needs to be done, we know it needs to be done, and the workers are there to do it. The will from the government is absent.

The reforestation program that the mayors on Vancouver Island have been involved in is another good idea, one that deserves all of our support. But it's only part of the answer. Silviculture is not something we need to finance out of jiggery-pokery, in the sense of finding money here, there and everywhere else from various government fundings. We need to say that every year we need x number of dollars, in this case about $300 million, so let's allocate it as an investment for our forests.

We need to deal with the question of training programs, particularly for women who are entering or re-entering the workforce so that they can fully participate in the labour force. In that process we need to adopt the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, for all government-funded jobs. More training seats for women in vocational, technical and upgrading programs must be pursued. The women's economic rights branch should be restarted and made into a more vital part of government. Introduction of a provincial pension plan would be a very useful program to get people involved in our economy, and particularly would help women.

Mr. Speaker, finally in this list of ideas may I say that if we had healthy workplaces we would have better productivity in this province. But with the state of workplace health and safety in this province, with the state of the Workers' Compensation Board, clearly what's needed is a full public inquiry, if not a royal commission, into the whole question of workplace occupational health and safety.

My time is virtually up. Seconded by the member for Skeena, I would like to move the following amendment: that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following words: "But this House regrets that in the opinion of this House the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make provisions to reduce unemployment or to create new long-term employment within the province, to address the crises in education and human services, and to control increasing government deficits and the cost of the public debt."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is in order, as printed in Orders of the Day.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I listened attentively to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and made some notes on a scratch pad in front of me. I was going to reply to his speech, but after he engaged in that type of confrontational abusive attack, improperly factualized — in other words, not fully in accordance with the truth, in terms of his accusations — and after the comment from my colleague who preceded me, just one simple sentence that caused the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to.... I don't know what he did — blew up, got up in a huff, slammed his desk, picked up his books and stalked out of the chamber. I thought that if that's the case, he's going to have to live with himself the rest of his life. Therefore the notes I had made to reply to him I thought would be wasted; obviously he's not interested in counter comment or debate, but just in accusation and stalking out.

The amendment, while it has just been read by the mover, probably needs to be reiterated, and I wouldn't mind doing that. We're asking the House to express regret, sorrow, sadness at the fact that the Minister of Finance has failed to make provisions to reduce unemployment, or to create new long-term employment within the province, to address the crises in education and human services and to control increasing government deficits and the cost of the public debt.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this province, and have had for quite a few years now, a desperate, burning need for government to come along with a long-range concept; in other words, a concept for the future, something that our younger people could look to with hope and anticipation, and say: "Yes, our government recognizes our need. There is hope for us into the future."

We've had for some years a desperate and crying need for government to engage in the management of the economy: the creation of jobs, a program and some ideas and some policies that this generation and our younger generations can look to with hope. We've had a desperate need for a government to make a commitment to sound fiscal policies which help, not fiscal policies which penalize.

In recent years, because of the accumulation of direct debt, the burden is directly on the taxpayers of this province. This province and the people in it have hoped for some plan for that debt reduction, for the management of the debt. Not one of those four items that I enumerated — a long-range concept, management of the economy, helpful fiscal policies and a plan for debt reduction — is addressed in the budget. In fact — and I'm not the only one who says this — they are ignored completely, as if having no place in the political affairs of this province; and that's why the amendment.

[11:30]

Instead of a long-range concept, we've got a government bent on pursuing a short-term, short-range political fix to the economy. We've got a government that's like a heroin addict: when the quick-fix wears off, they've got to have another shot. That's what this budget does, and that's what previous budgets have done: short-range, immediate — "Let's get a hype on this particular theme that we're following at any given moment, and that will solve matters." That's what they did with restraint, and that's what the member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), who is sitting across from me, in coming out of her own caucus last winter said: "Oh, the public is fed up with the word 'restraint.' We've got to hide from that word; it's a bad word." Yet restraint was the quick fix of the moment, and it failed.

This budget has another heroin injection in it. We've got a desire for management of the economy, to do something in the long-range point of view. In this budget — and this is why the amendment is before us — we have an abandonment of that. Turn over things completely to those in our society whose sole rationale for existence is to have a clean-looking balance sheet.

The government likes to say it's the function of the capitalist system to provide jobs. That is not true. It's the function of the capitalist system to develop a profitable balance

[ Page 5342 ]

sheet; that's what it is. If in the process of doing that jobs are provided and created, one is ancillary to the other. When the government abandons its responsibility to the totality of society and turns over that question of security for our people in this province to a group who have another goal in their eyes, then that's abandonment.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The fiscal policy in this province, under this budget, didn't work last year; it didn't work the year before; it didn't work the year before that, and now we've got more of the same. How about a plan to manage the debt even — the direct debt? There is nothing in the budget about that, except more debt on the way. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I'm not the only one who says that. Let me read a brief quotation into the record from Thorne Riddell, chartered accountants, a review of the provincial budget — a group, incidentally, which endorses the budget generally because it said it helps business. But here's what Thorne Riddell Inc. said on page 4 with respect to the debt: "Notably absent from this budget is a plan to deal with the mounting provincial deficit." They're not my words but the words of respected, reputable Thorne Riddell Inc. That is incorporated in the amendment, so I assume if members opposite vote against the amendment, they will basically be voting against Thorne Riddell as well. The words are: "Notably absent is a plan to deal with...deficit."

I want to deal specifically with forestry under the amendment, and the need for employment. Forestry, logging, sawmilling, pulp and paper mills, plywood, shingle mills and the whole range of activity in the forest industry in this province is the single most important aspect of our economy above all others. This government treats it like it is a fading industry, a sunset industry, in the common phraseology of today. They treat it like it's going to dwindle away and disappear.

Forestry is important economically, Mr. Speaker, because it accounts for 60 percent of the income to the province from exports. If we could export more finished products, if we just bend our eyes in that direction and do something to enhance the manufacturing of wood products further in this province, that 60 percent would increase. But 60 percent of our income and exports is forestry.

Some 42 percent of the manufacturing in the province comes from forestry, and forestry will remain vital and important to us in this province for generations and decades to come — forever if we do it properly. It's a renewable resource, and it requires commitment on the part of government on behalf of all of the people of this province, and it requires financing. Silvicultural activities are the key to providing that immediate and long-term employment.

Do you know how much is in this budget, Mr. Speaker, as a percentage of the total budget for silviculture? One-half of 1 percent of $9 billion is anticipated to be ploughed back into the future of forestry. Here's a government that spends twice that amount on keeping people in jails. They'd sooner spend money on televisions and tenderloin steaks for people in jails than on planting trees for the future. That's an example of the orientation of this government. There's something wrong with a government that has that kind of priorities. There's something wrong with a government that doesn't give a damn about the future of this province and the people in it, but concentrates its activities on things like those I just mentioned.

We're currently planting about half the area harvested — half the area logged over or denuded by fire or insect infestation. We're continuing every day to lose half the potential of the forests for the future. When you project that just a few years into the future, Mr. Speaker, the job possibilities don't look too bright, unfortunately.

I'm not glooming and dooming anything; I'm just identifying the barrenness of imagination on the part of this government. We've got more than a million hectares of denuded forest land classified as NSR — not satisfactorily restocked — 650,000 of which are in good to medium sites, which is where we should be concentrating our site rehabilitation, preparation and planting. Seventy-five hundred jobs could start immediately, with somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 in the longer term from activity in silviculture. And we've got one-half of 1 percent.

We also got a budget this year that has an 8 percent increase over last year in total expenditures by this government, and a reduction in silvicultural money of 8 percent. The budget goes up by 8 percent, silviculture goes down by 8 percent. Is that a commitment to the future? It's a commitment to stupidity, a commitment to arrogance, a commitment to the confrontational tactics for which this government is noted. Four million dollars was taken out of silviculture that was there last year. I don't know where it went, but $4 million is removed from silviculture. What a condemnation, just in those figures themselves.

Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not the only person who condemns that. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) does himself, except he hasn't got the courage to stand up in the House and admit the failure that has taken place. Let me make a reference to this flashy-looking document called: "Five-Year Forest and Range Resource Program; Province of British Columbia; Ministry of Forests; the Honourable Tom Waterland, Minister; March, 1980." Let me tell you what the minister said we were going to do in this province — that was in 1980 — when it came out. I'm quoting from his own document, his own words. This is basic silviculture, just the fundamental activity that needs to take place: "To achieve the required level of basic silviculture by 1985, expenditures must" — an imperative — "increase to $60.8 million per year." This is at a time when they were not anticipating a federal-provincial agreement. This is straight provincial money on basic silviculture.

Here we are in 1985. We have a $4 million reduction in silviculture over last year. What did the minister say about intensive silviculture? That's a little bit further down the road from the basic. That's what really is necessary to make sure the trees grow after you plant them. "Average annual expenditures over-the five-year period will be" — this is from 1980 to 1985 — "$30.95 million, with significant increases in 1983-84 and beyond."

I have some more figures that the minister laid before the House at that time. In his projections, in 1980 dollars, the minister said: "We must" — basic and intensive silviculture — "in 1980-81 plough $75 million back into the forests; in 1981-82, $78 million; in 1982-83, $83 million; in 1983-84, $90 million; and in this year that's just about to conclude, 1984-85, $102 million."

Instead of following that great five-year range and resource plan — which, incidentally, this House endorsed unanimously, and which this government was applauded for

[ Page 5343 ]

and which everyone that I know of, and certainly everyone in this party, looked at with appreciation and said: "Finally we're embarking upon something other than just dealing with matters on a fiscal-year basis...." Those are the projections of the minister. That was his commitment to this House and to the people of this province. With the curtailment of $4 million, which was yanked out of silviculture, and with a reduction by some 8 percentage points to $53 million for silviculture in this budget, even in the face of and including therein moneys under the federal-provincial forestry agreement, we have nothing more than an admission of abject failure on the part of the minister.

We've got an anticipated forestry agreement somewhere that has been delayed and delayed ad infinitum and not yet signed. Why we don't know. We only know the minister hasn't been able to get it signed by his good friends in Ottawa, the Conservatives. Every moment's delay in the signing of that agreement is a delay in the opportunity to plan for this coming fiscal year. Maybe that's why the minister finally admitted yesterday in this chamber that in this coming fiscal year all that will be allocated for silviculture is $22 million out of the federal-provincial agreement. There will be $44 million next year and $68 million in each of the three following years. That sounds like his five-year projection that I just referred to. It escalates into the future.

[11:45]

It wasn't realized before. What guarantee, if any, is there that it will be realized now? It's speculation to deal with that point. But if you add those figures up, it comes to $270 million over a five-year period. Yet the agreement is touted to be for $300 million. What happened to the other $30 million? Is that to be diverted for some other purposes? Is that in the back of the government's mind — to say: "You know, we're going to use that for something else"? We don't know, but even the $22 million — not by my standards, but by the standards set by the mayors on Vancouver Island — is inadequate. The mayors on Vancouver Island have had a number of meetings about silviculture, and they say that just for Vancouver Island alone, they could use $23 million this year — never mind the rest of the province. And the minister is talking about $22 million, compared with the $102 million he projected in 1980, which is an admission of failure.

Mr. Speaker, I have advanced the idea that we identify a ten-year period. That's in concert with people who are engaged in the practice of forestry and are saying that we necessarily have to commit ourselves that long into the future to do something worthwhile with forestry; that we should identify a precise amount of money to be slotted into that fund each year; that we should take 25 percent of the income that accrues to the province under the Forest Act and the Logging Tax Act, and plough that back into forestry; that we should put into the fund the moneys that would accrue and come to the province under the federal-provincial agreement; that we should sanctify that, set it aside and let a trust company administer it so the government can't get its hands on it. Our future is too important to have a repetition of the history in this province of cheating by the government when it comes to forestry matters.

You know, Mr. Speaker, and others in this chamber know full well, the applause that was given to the government in 1980 when it set up the five-year range and resource fund, when it set aside moneys and said: "We are committed to the future." I think it was $136 million they set aside and identified to be set aside in that fund for silvicultural purposes. That was applauded throughout the province, throughout the industry and throughout the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters, who are committed in an intellectual way and in a professional way to caring for our forests for the future. Everybody said "good," and then two years later when the Minister of Finance reached in and grabbed what was left of that fund — I think it was $83 million or something of that nature — out of the hands of the Minister of Forests and stuck it into general revenue, for what purpose we don't really know.... Maybe it was to build new jails, or maybe they anticipated relocating Oakalla or something of that sort, with that money; we don't really know. But they grabbed it and they took it.

Did Forests fight back? Did the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) stand up to retain that money for the future? No, he did not. He failed miserably in his responsibilities, in his oath of office. He failed miserably in the duties assigned to him under the Ministry of Forests Act to fight to keep that money. Instead he sat in cabinet, genteel and laid-back, and supinely accepted the theft of money set aside for forestry theft by the Minister of Finance, in an indirect way.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Point of order — unparliamentary language,

MR. HOWARD: Theft was not the word to use, Mr. Speaker. I have no hesitation in agreeing to that.

The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Finance reached in and grabbed the money, and the fact of the matter is that the Minister of Forests sat back and smiled and accepted it. Any Minister of Forests committed to the future — other than this current one — would have done something about that, I submit.

That activity, that failure to stand up and fight for what is right and correct and what is a commitment to the future, set this province back ten years, as far as preserving some integrity in the forest industry itself and as far as silviculture and a projection into the future are concerned. That action in itself denied us, for the time being, a chance to do something correct. We're reviving that, and have revived it publicly by statements and by making mention in this chamber of the need to establish an identifiable amount of money for an identifiable period of time out of reach of the government, out of reach of the Minister of Finance, set aside exclusively and committed for forestry and for the future.

Let me make one other reference to forestry. We have an agreement called ERDA, loosely referred to from time to time by that acronym: the economic and regional development agreement. This agreement was signed, Mr. Speaker, by this government and the federal government on November 23, 1984. In that agreement there is the most regrettable clause. I asked the Minister of Forests about it the other day in question period, and he said: "Oh, I doubt that there is anything like that in the agreement." I assured him that there was.

ERDA is for ten years, theoretically. Any forestry subsidiary agreement could be for the same period of time, with the appropriate extended amount of money over that period of time. Let me tell you what the ERDA agreement says, what this government signed, to show you once again the very short-range approach it has to matters in this province and to the future of this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 5344 ]

Article 9.1 says: "The term of this agreement shall be...until March 31, 1994" — about ten years from the date of signing. Article 9.2 says that notwithstanding that, "this agreement may be terminated at the end of any fiscal year that occurs after the expiration of two years from the date hereof by either party giving to the other at least one full fiscal year's prior notice in writing...."

Now we have a ten-year agreement with the right of the provincial government to wipe it out after three years and the right of the federal government unilaterally to wipe it out after a ten-year period. I can understand incorporating in an agreement of this nature something about cancellation by mutual consent, yes. I can understand the use of the phrase that's internationally known in contractual relationships between countries — force majeure — as a necessity upon which they can found cancellation. But to incorporate into an agreement relating to our future the unilateral right of either level of government to wipe it out after three years is simply not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment clearly should be supported by everybody in this House, especially the portion of it that Thorne Riddell endorses, namely that there is nothing in the budget...or that notably absent from this budget is a plan to deal with the mounting provincial deficit. The amendment should be supported on the grounds that while there is an 8 percent increase in total budgetary expenditures this year over last, there is a reduction of 8 percent or $4 million from the silvicultural moneys available. There is a denial in the silvicultural question of our need to do something worthwhile and fundamental for the future.

That's the rationale for the amendment itself. It's not so much what we say or do here but how strong is our commitment to the younger people of this land, to those who are unemployed and to future generations. On that basis and with that principle — obviously, Mr. Speaker, because I've seconded the amendment — I'm going to vote for it, and I hope members opposite will see the necessity of doing the same thing. I simply ask you, if it's possible, to look into your hearts. Vote on the basis of what your heart tells you, and you'll support us on this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate on behalf of Hon. Mr. Heinrich.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.