[ Page 6723 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Amend The Motion Picture Act (Bill M221). Mrs. Wallace

Introduction and first reading –– 6723

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 3), 1985 (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6723

Tabling Documents –– 6723

Oral Questions

Vancouver Transition House. Ms. Brown –– 6723

Expo 86 souvenir sales. Mr. MacWilliam 6723

Mr. Williams

Log scaling. Mr. Howard –– 6724

Mr. Williams

Hazardous chemicals. Mrs. Wallace –– 6725

Tabling Documents –– 6725

Committee of Supply: Premier's office. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 6725

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Michael

Mr. Williams

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the House to welcome my wife to the gallery today, and a long-time family friend and former teaching associate of my wife, Mrs. Agnes Fraser from Victoria.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the House today is a member from the Montana state legislature, Mr. Rapp-Furcek, a neighbour of mine in southeastern British Columbia. I'd like the House to give him a very warm welcome today.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTION PICTURE ACT

Mrs. Wallace presented a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Motion Picture Act.

MRS. WALLACE: This is a bill that would in fact bring videotapes, which are disposed of.... [Applause]

I didn't realize this would be such a popular bill. May I join in welcoming back to the House, after a long absence, the Premier of the province.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this bill would bring under the jurisdiction of the Motion Picture Act those videotapes that are distributed for home viewing. By way of explanation, I think it is only right that these be regulated through the film classification director and come under the same kind of classification as other means of visual display of material. It's important, because of the vastly increased availability of pornography which violates community standards and of the gross exploitation of violence, particularly to women and children.

Bill M221 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1985

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Smith, Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985.

Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the 1983-84 annual report of the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER TRANSITION HOUSE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. It has to do with the fate of the Vancouver Transition House. In view of the fact that the experiment in privatizing the Vancouver Transition House for battered women has failed, and as a consequence the shelter will be closing on June 20, can the mhjhjinister give a firm commitment to this House that there will be no disruption of service at the Vancouver Transition House?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I know the member will be pleased to know that in the last five years, transition homes in the province of British Columbia have increased from five to 32 at the present time, and that about ten safe homes have been established. In addition, there are areas where there is not a large enough area for a transition home service, but a safe haven is provided for victims of family violence.

In response to the question regarding the Vancouver Transition House, as you remember, it was the only transition house in the whole of the province in that group of transition homes that was operated at that time by the government. In order to make it consistent with the rest of the province, we did put out a private contract, which the YWCA picked up. It was unfortunate, and I was saddened to hear, that the YWCA felt they could not continue that contract. It was they that cancelled the contract to operate the Vancouver Transition House. Since learning of the cancellation of that contract, we have put out a public tender for bid proposals to come in for the continuation of a like service for the Vancouver area. I understand, Mr. Speaker, through my ministry, that we have had quite a good indication of interest.

On the date when they will be able to reinstitute that service, however, I have not got that information at the present time. How long it will take them to go through that expression of interest already indicated and more yet to come probably, I am sorry.... I would be glad to let the member know as soon as that service is available.

MS. BROWN: A supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the ad in the newspaper said that submissions could be made to pick up the contract until June 28, which is the date that the present contract runs out. I'm asking the minister whether she will assure the House that service will continue, either through the Y or directly through the Ministry of Human Resources, to the battered women of Vancouver, since it's the only transition house in Vancouver, until the new contract has been awarded.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, of course the service to those in need of that assistance will continue after June 28, unquestionably. As the member will know, it is through the response to the Ministry of Human Resources that the call is usually made — or to the police or whatever. Then the family or the member or members of the family are then sent to a transition house or to a safe haven. Unquestionably that service is going to be continued for whoever calls, whoever is in need. The service will be continued. Thank you for the question.

EXPO 86 SOUVENIR SALES

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier.... Welcome back, Mr. Premier. As they say in Japan, konnichi wa, o-kyaku-sama — at least I think that's how they say it.

[ Page 6724 ]

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You figure it out!

During the Premier's absence it has been revealed that Expo 86 Corporation has entered into a monopoly agreement involving some $75 million in souvenir contracts with a foreign-owned company, Specialty Mfg. The contract has been awarded without competition. In view of the considerable public interest in this matter, has the Premier decided to make the terms of the contract public?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question might more properly be directed to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who is the government's representative on the Expo board. I would tell the member that, for my part, I will be meeting with the chairman of Expo this week to discuss a number of matters. However....

[2:15]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all; to tell him of the enthusiastic support that our fair has in the Expo community that I had an opportunity to visit when I was in Tsukuba, Japan, and the fact that they are very impressed that the construction schedule is six months ahead of that which the Japanese exposition maintained. It is the first fair in recent years that they can remember which is this far along at this stage of the game. I'm sure Mr. Pattison will be overjoyed to receive some good news.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the Premier. It might interest the Premier to know that I have been asking that question of the minister for the past two weeks and have received virtually no response. I would ask, in view of that information, if the Premier would consider answering my questions on whether he has decided to make the terms of the contract public.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll certainly talk to the Minister of Tourism about it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary to the Premier. A related contract to supply about 1.25 million copies of the Expo souvenir guide has been awarded to a company owned by the Expo chairman. Has the Premier decided to make the terms of this contract public?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be meeting Mr. Pattison, and talking over all the business of Expo — I'm sure that we have a broad cross-section of British Columbians directing the corporation — from conflict-of-interest guidelines to other matters, and reviewing things in regard to management. I cannot give an undertaking today that I will do those things, but I will certainly be discussing a number of matters with both my colleague the Minister of Tourism and the chairman of Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm glad the Premier mentioned the conflict-of-interest guidelines. They have apparently been approved. But despite a commitment from the Minister of Tourism at an earlier request from me to make the guidelines public, those guidelines have not yet been made public. I wonder if the Premier has decided whether or not to table the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm sure that if the Minister of Tourism gave that undertaking, they'll be here in due course.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier advising us that that is the undertaking of the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I said, if the member would listen, was that if the minister gave that commitment, I'm sure he would keep it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Does the Premier feel that it's reasonable, in view of all the controversy that has surrounded this enormous project, to in fact deposit the conflict-of-interest guidelines before the House so that everybody can be satisfied that they are indeed sound guidelines?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll better be able to answer the member's question after I've had my meetings with the minister and the chairman of the Expo Corporation.

MR. WILLIAMS: So freedom of information is not to be readily available on critical issues like that. Is that the point?

A further question. The business community in our province has been concerned with respect to the $75 million deal with Specialty Mfg., which essentially is a middleman arrangement for souvenirs and which essentially locks out B.C. people in terms of jobs and opportunities in terms of souvenirs. Is the Premier prepared to reconsider that arrangement with this middleman outfit, Specialty?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm certain that all of these matters may come up during my discussions, but the member for Vancouver East would well know the reaction of the public no matter how they view the deal, if government, say through legislation, broke a legal contract. I think he remembers something about that from his time in government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier saying then that markups of 100 to 550 percent are acceptable with respect to the souvenir arrangements at Expo? Does the government agree with that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know whether that information that the member is using is correct or not.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the businessmen who has been blocked out with respect to Expo souvenirs and supplies indicates that only three of the 29 articles he saw were in fact produced in Canada. The remainder were produced in Japan, Taiwan and Korea. Could the Premier advise us if he reviewed some of those materials in his trip abroad?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

LOG SCALING

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the Minister of Forests whether, in light of the tabling of a report from the ombudsman with respect to what is identified as the Cobb case, the minister has taken action now to follow the recommendation of the ombudsman and institute a payment to Mr. Cobb for the shortfall with respect to the scaling of his timber.

[ Page 6725 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I have not made such a decision. I thought it rather unfortunate that the ombudsman should table that report when he did, because he knew full well that my ministry staff and people from the Attorney General's office were meeting that very afternoon in ongoing discussions as to the resolution of that problem.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister advising the House, then, that the group that he's been meeting with is prepared to consider compensation or some arrangements for righting the problems that Mr. Cobb has faced through these years?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I did not say that at all. I said we were having ongoing consideration of the problem. I didn't say what we were considering doing.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister of Forests advise the House if he's reconsidering all the arrangements with respect to scaling at the private level in the province as a result of the information that he's received?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. When did the minister develop the policy, announced yesterday by the Victoria manager of the ministry's environment and safety program, that householders should dispose of deadly PCB wastes in domestic garbage?

HON. MR. PELTON: The remarks attributed to the employee of the Ministry of Environment and the suggested remark about tossing fluid-filled fluorescent light bulbs into the garbage were intemperate, to say the least, and he has been so notified. As far as I'm concerned, PCB light ballasts are not to be tossed in the garbage as suggested in the headline of the article which appeared in the paper. We have special ways of disposing of them by storage, and I would suggest that it would be prudent on the part of all householders, or any others who have occasion to suspect that these ballasts are leaking PCBs, to notify the ministry and turn them in to us.

MRS. WALLACE: I notice that the minister has realized that it's the ballasts, not the light bulbs, that have the PCBs. We're going to notify.... Do you want us to personally call your office? Are you going to advertise your office number in the paper? Where are they to be picked up? Where are they to be delivered? What is to happen to them?

What kind of a policy do you have, or do you have a policy? I suspect you don't have any policy.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as on many occasions in the past week or two, suspects incorrectly. There is a phone number. I believe it can be found in the telephone book. We have a 24-hour service that people can call and the problems will be attended to forthwith.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the other day in question period I volunteered to table the conflict of interest guidelines as drawn up by retired Justice Kenneth S. Fawcus. I have pleasure in tabling those now. I hasten to point out, Mr. Speaker, it was not at the request of any member from over there. I volunteered to table them and I am pleased to do so.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in a verbal response to a question asked of me today, I think I quoted — I would have to check the Blues — that five years ago there were five transition houses in British Columbia, and now there are over thirty. The numbers are that five years ago there were seven, and now there are over thirty. I wouldn't want to mislead the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker tabled special report No. 13 of the Ombudsman of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 4: premier's office, $694,396.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in opening discussion of the estimates of the Premier's office, I would like to say that sometimes it takes a view from outside to recognize how well you're really doing. Sometimes it takes the perspective of those who can view in a non-partisan sense the accomplishments, the investment climate and the growth that can be expected in our economy: those opinions have more validity and a better sense of perspective.

Recently, as all members are aware, along with the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I led a delegation of business leaders, industrialists and financial people, as well as three mayors representing communities who have entered into provincial-municipal partnership agreements. This mission had the most enthusiastic response, and therefore the busiest schedule in detailed meetings, both for our business group and our mayors, and for me and the minister, with government as well as business leaders, talking about new markets for British Columbia products, new areas in which we can broaden our economic base to include a stronger manufacturing sector, and broaden it into areas in which it creates employment for our people, and tie it to international markets.

The response we got was not because we were necessarily another mission from British Columbia but was in recognition of a number of major policies that have taken place both within Canada and our province — among other things, the fact that the Canadian government has changed the Foreign Investment Review Act to Investment Canada. Instead of restricting investment, that brings markets and investment that creates jobs and broadens economic activity. The government of Canada has told the world that Canada is open for business, and therefore economic development and jobs. That in itself is a significant fact to those who have wanted to expand their trade with us in the past, those who recognize that Canada, and particularly British Columbia, can be a valuable trading partner, a reliable trading partner and a competitive trading partner. That in itself has significantly enhanced the opportunities that our businesses large and

[ Page 6726 ]

small have in this province to expand their businesses, and for new areas of business opportunity to be opened.

[2:30]

What impressed as well those who look to do business with Canada, to buy our products, were the new opportunities that are available now because of budget measures introduced by this government in the Finance minister's budget in March, the incentive programs contained within the municipal-provincial partnership agreement, and the harnessing of our hydroelectric energy as a way of attracting industry that will utilize it in order to create jobs and as an additional incentive for broadening our economic base.

They also were able to view with a sense of perspective how British Columbia was able to do this, while other provinces and other areas, instead of cutting taxes and making business more competitive, in fact increased taxes, providing a less hospitable climate. They are impressed by the fact that British Columbia has also recognized that it can utilize those tools that we have within our possession, our energy and our resources — and perhaps our strongest tool, the partnership of the people and the partnership of governments working together, rather than having no strategy and no common commitment to accomplishing this task.

It impressed them that travelling with the government were not only industrialists and businessmen but also the three mayors. It brought home to them, through the mayors being able to talk about their communities and the type of industry they want, and by how they were eager to attract investment that created jobs in their area.... Therefore they were part of a very positive program that will provide economic incentive areas in every part of this province.

It is a unique program, but one which is viewed in a positive way in the international community. It is one that has caught their attention, and therefore we'll continue to hear the type of announcements we're now hearing of new projects for B.C.: new gas sales, new fertilizer plants, new ammonia urea plants. We'll continue to hear new announcements of paper mills going into the area of fine papers, which were announced the other day. Specifically contained within it was the fact that they were doing it here because of the budget proposals, the incentive proposals and a competitive tax base introduced by this government this year. Those things are self-evident when you see things happening.

Last February.... It's reinforced that this government with its five-year strategy to do with municipal-provincial economic development agreements, with its strategy of working closely with the federal government in encouraging business in key sectors, having made the hard decisions one, two and three years ago in containing government costs, runaway compensation in the public sector, in order to have an affordable tax base and preserve essential services in government rather than see them threatened by mounting deficits and a growing debt that would eat more and more into the budget of the province — has been on the right track. This government is now going to be able to show the type of improvement and have the type of economic climate — along with the political stability that this government provides — which will attract the investment and the jobs to our province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for...

MR. ROSE: Coquitlam-Moody.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How did you know I was going to talk to you?

...Coquitlam-Moody says it sounds like the Speech from the Throne, and he's right. This government is consistent. We don't say one thing one day and one thing another like the NDP over there. Yes, we're consistent. But Mr. Chairman....

MR. BLENCOE: Same unemployment rate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Victoria says: "Same unemployment rate." We have had difficult unemployment in this province. It is too high, and the only way to reduce it is to attract investment and business that compete and stay in business to provide the jobs. That is how you resolve it, and that is what this government is doing. Now the member from Victoria says: "Same unemployment rate." I noticed that they took great glee, never questioned the unemployment statistics or the figures as long as they were going up and things were difficult.... Because we've had a difficult time. This province fell the furthest because of our resource industries and international markets. Jobs have been lost in those resource industries as they've gone through a structural change. The member opposite has taken great glee, never questioning the statistics as unemployment increased.

Then in May there is a major announcement that British Columbia has a major drop in unemployment, and that there are 37,000 more people working in May than in April, and 47,000 more than the year before, and what does he do? He questions the statistics. All of a sudden the statistics are no good. Oh, they are good when he's able to rant and rave. Instead of offering solutions, that member over there wants to criticize and throw sand in the gears, but how obvious it is that he doesn't want a solution. He is almost gleeful when things are tough in British Columbia, because he smells that if things get bad enough, somehow they will get political success. Instead of saying it's good that there are 37,000 more British Columbians working, he says the figures aren't correct; the statistics aren't correct, the statistics he used time and again.

Mr. Chairman, someone might almost think that that member is playing politics — I hate to say it — and that he lacks sincerity, and that his party lacks sincerity.

Mr. Chairman, things are improving steadily. When I spoke to the people of the province in February, I outlined the type of measures that we could now undertake and that would be presented to this Legislature, because we had done the difficult things — yes, they were tough to do — in containing government costs and in containing unrealistic rises in public sector compensation. I and the Finance minister said that it's supportable within our five-year plan, to continue to contain the deficit as well as remove taxes that were making our businesses less competitive than they should be and therefore they could no longer be reliable employers, and to encourage new business to know that they could be competitive in British Columbia in taxes — in fact, more than competitive, and become new employers. That's the type of thing that is happening. What we said then we have introduced and put into the programs in this Legislature.

The results are already being felt. But this program isn't something developed in a hurry. This program has been part of a plan since 1982 in which the government knew we had to

[ Page 6727 ]

face an international recession. It was obvious to everyone that there was an international recession and that resource areas — particularly in industrial slowdown — would suffer the most. That has been the case. In Canada the two provinces — because they had the farthest to fall — which were doing the best fell the most: Alberta and British Columbia. In British Columbia we have responded by undertaking public expenditure that's affordable, undertaking — under tight fiscal management — the types of controls that allow us now to be a more attractive and competitive place for business and industry and therefore jobs.

The results are starting to show. They're showing up in the employment statistics; they're showing up in the investment that's coming to the province. I read in the paper the other day that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) said investment was fleeing the province. In the same papers you've got announcements of a $600 million investment here, a $60 million investment there and new businesses starting up. You have a decline in the bankruptcies in this province and you have a new momentum and a new interest in investment.

Investment isn't fleeing. This isn't like 1975, when the mining industry had fled the province. This isn't like 1975, when more people left British Columbia than came — the only year that that has ever happened since those statistics started to be recorded. I remember it. British Columbians remember it. The only ones who forget it are the group over there whose memory gets more selective year by year by year.

Mr. Chairman, when I was in Korea and Japan we found a renewed interest in going beyond the traditional investment and purchase areas. We see an interest now in secondary manufacture of a number of items. The success of the Toyota wheel plant in which we are producing wheels — not as some restriction on automobiles here or to be put on local supply but for shipping them back to Japan for inclusion on automobiles for shipment to all parts of their market area wherever they sell in the world — is an indication to the Japanese industry that you can produce in Canada, that we've got productive workers, that we've got a sound economic climate and that we have the ability to produce products here, not in a captive, protected market, but to compete within the international competitive market and compete very well. The product from that plant is of very high quality. It's a credit to the Canadian and British Columbia workers who are in that plant that we can do it here. That plant, as well, is one of the areas that has renewed their interest in Canada and particularly in British Columbia.

You've got to know, Mr. Chairman, that British Columbia plays an important role in Canada's balance of payments in international trade, and of the $11.3 billion of trade between Canada and Japan, 70 percent of the product is sourced from British Columbia. Today, when international trade and balance of payments are the ways in which countries can make their economies grow and provide secure employment, it is even more important that British Columbia assist our country, not only in creating jobs for our people and broadening our own economy, but in keeping Canada strong economically by having more trade being sourced out of British Columbia and therefore contributing to a country which needs to grow stronger as well, for while the first few hesitant steps are being taken, our country and our government of Canada got into very serious financial problems with the high deficits and the amount of borrowing that now is taking about 33 cents of every tax dollar that goes to Ottawa. That doesn't go to help people; it goes to pay or service the debt.

So it would be of great assistance, Mr. Chairman, as British Columbia continues to develop, to continue these types of economic policies that show leadership, We received praise for our courage in tackling our problems and we received great encouragement that what we're able to do now will pay great dividends in the future.

Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude these few opening remarks, because I've got a lot to say this afternoon, and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss in more detail a number of key areas with all my colleagues during this debate of my estimates.

[2: 45]

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to welcome Dr. Spector back to the Legislature. We unfortunately missed him last year. I don't think we debated the Premier's estimates in the Legislature, because the Premier was absent for his estimates.

It's interesting to hear what the Premier says about his vacation in Asia and about the opportunity to get outside the province and see that there is a view from outside this province. It's unfortunate that he didn't have that opportunity when he was Leader of the Opposition. Let me tell you what he said about a few things that were happening back in 1974, in his Christmas letter to the editor — and I'll relate it to some of the things the Premier said in the Legislature today, Mr. Chairman. At that time he said, not sounding as positive as he does now about the future prospects of British Columbia — but, of course, he may have been looking ahead to a Social Credit government: "Over 80,000 of our citizens are now unemployed, and the number is climbing rapidly." How happy he was at that time that he could make those kinds of criticisms of another government and not blame it on international markets, relations among currency values and all of those things, and that he could take the inside view at that time and suggest that it was all the responsibility of our little government here in British Columbia.

But there are two sides to the coin, Mr. Chairman. Let me talk about unemployment now in the province of British Columbia. According to the latest statistics, May 1985, actual unemployment in the province of British Columbia is 198,000. That's 118,000 more than when the Premier was talking about the sad unemployment situation in the province of British Columbia in 1974. In some regions of the province there are more people unemployed than there were in the whole province of B.C. in 1974, when the Premier was expressing his concern. In the Vancouver area there's 12.4 percent unemployment. There are more people unemployed in the lower mainland now, even during the construction phase of Expo and ALRT and all of these projects that the Premier is talking about, than there were in the whole province in 1974.

The Premier says we take delight in talking about unemployment statistics. We don't take delight in that at all, Mr. Chairman. Our constituents are unemployed. Members of their families are unemployed. We talk about these unemployment statistics because we would like to see the government do something significant about them, and not talk about visiting Korea and Japan and getting the outside view. We want to know what the government is planning to do right here and now in the province of British Columbia. The unemployment statistics in British Columbia right now are

[ Page 6728 ]

nothing less than criminal. We are pleased that actual employment shows an increase of 37,000 over the last month — 37,000 is almost half the people who were unemployed in the province in 1974, when the Premier was complaining about unemployment rates under the previous government.

What is the Premier planning to do now about the disastrous rate of unemployment in the province of B.C.? Well, in December 1974 the Premier said that the Barrett government had recently borrowed $100 million from the U.S. at 10.25 percent interest rates. Then he gave the Minister of Finance a little lecture about borrowing — and we've heard this lecture before, Mr. Chairman. I don't fault my party members here for saying that this is the same speech he has made over and over again in this Legislature. The debt of the province of B.C. in 1975 was $4 billion. When we talk now about government-guaranteed debt as well as direct debt of the province, which didn't exist at that time at all, we're dealing with a debt of $17 billion. There's more direct debt in this province today than there was total debt of the provincial government back in 1975. We're spending more money paying interest to bankers in this province than an NDP government could ever have contemplated.

The Premier talks about borrowing — page upon page upon page of debt that this province has run up. Complaining about interest rates at 10 1/4 percent — look at the interest rates that this Premier is being gouged on with the debt he's run this province into. It would be fine if we were putting people in this province back to work with the money we borrow, but we're not doing that. With unemployment at 198,000 in British Columbia, clearly we're not spending that money in the right areas.

Where are we spending the money? In 1974 the Premier talked about people living on welfare, people living in poverty. I'll tell you where we're spending the money now. Back in 1974-75 we spent $400 million on welfare payments; we're now spending $1.3 billion annually to keep people on welfare. We're borrowing $1 billion annually to pay the welfare bill in this province. What a shameful economic performance this Premier has put on. What a shameful economic performance this government has displayed. The premier, back in 1974, talked about bungling and incompetence. The premier established the criteria for bungling and incompetence, and he measures up to his own criteria. He talks about welfare — 233,000 people are on welfare in British Columbia. That's the measure of this premier's performance.

He talks about a few projects that have been developed — the ammonia plants and the one at Ocelot where they're adding 14 jobs. He talks about the paper mill that's being proposed for the Howe Sound area — another 300 and some jobs. We're pleased that those companies are investing here in British Columbia. Now there may be a trade-off. We may be making concessions to those companies that we can ill-afford in the future, but we're pleased that any jobs at all are created in this province under the current government. Those three projects that the Premier talked about add up to just over a thousand jobs, and we're pleased that those jobs have come to the province. They're not here yet. Some of them are in the future — two years in some cases; beyond that in some cases. So we're not talking about jobs that are employing people here and now as a result of this government policy. We're talking about jobs that have been promised for sometime in the future. We don't know if these plants will pass the government's environment regulations, although virtually everything does.

So we don't know exactly what's going to happen with these plants, but yes, we are pleased that the announcements have been made. And just over a thousand jobs. We're very pleased to see that those jobs have been promised for the future, but at the same time this minister, this government, have cut over a thousand jobs from the education sector in the province. We've lost those jobs; they're just as important to the citizens of British Columbia. At the same time as private industry is announcing new jobs supported by government concessions — in other words, by the public sector — we're firing well over a thousand people from the education system in British Columbia.

Back in 1974 the Premier talked about the growth of secondary industry in B.C. "Investment capital hesitates to come to British Columbia, " he said, taking some delight in the statement, obviously.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, he didn't say it was fleeing the province, but then I didn't either. However, I did quote a statement from the department of regional industrial expansion in which they said investment was increasing all over Canada. They had taken a sample of investment intentions of private corporations across the country. Investment was increasing, they said, all over Canada, except that in Atlantic Canada it had gone down 5 percent and in that other maritime province, British Columbia, it had gone down 9 percent. Capital isn't fleeing the province; it isn't coming here in the first place, if those intentions are realized.

We don't take delight in those kinds of figures at all, Mr. Chairman. We would like to see more money invested in the province of British Columbia. We would certainly hope that British Columbians invest in the province of B.C. as well, not having to go elsewhere, to Ontario or Manitoba to invest their money. Manitoba, by the way, is one of those provinces where investment is increasing, under the more positive climate created by a New Democratic Party government.

The Premier talked about his visit to Asia. We recognize that there's a need for British Columbians to go and get that outside view. We realize that it's important for British Columbians to visit these countries — government, industry, labour and local government. But we also think that other things should be done. For example, we had a visitor to the resources committee of our NDP caucus. You'll be aware, Mr. Chairman, that under this current government we no longer have regular meetings of select standing committees of the Legislature. I don't think terms of reference have ever been assigned to the Environment and Resources Committee of the Legislature since this government took office in 1975. That committee hasn't met for ten years, even to elect a chairman and a secretary, because it's a waste of time. Terms of reference are never assigned. Legislators don't have the opportunity to become informed in a bipartisan way as to what's happening in the province. People out there in the forest industry especially are desperate to get their information and point of view across to legislators so that we can make better decisions in this Legislature.

[3:00]

We met with a representative of the forest industry, a man named Landucci from Landucci Lumber in New Westminster. It was a public meeting, and the press were able to come and listen. Mr. Landucci said he had gone to a trade fair in Hanover that was discussing the secondary manufacture of

[ Page 6729 ]

forest products — you know, furniture, door and windowsash components, all of those kinds of things that you see thousands of times a day. All of them are high value-added products. They're worth a tremendous amount. They bring in a tremendous amount of revenue to the companies that produce them, to the workers that produce them, and to the governments of countries where they're produced. He went to a trade fair in Hanover, West Germany, where there were 75,000 people involved in that industry discussing the future of that industry, and selling the parts, machinery and equipment used in that industry.

Guess who wasn't represented? The wizard salesmen of British Columbia. The government of British Columbia was not represented at that trade fair. You, Mr. Chairman, understand how important forest products are in the province of B.C. and how important they are for your constituency. They are of tremendous importance. Because of our high unemployment rate in the forest industry, we need to attract more jobs by adding more value and finishing the products that we have in our forest industry, in order to get our people back to work. Guess who wasn't represented at this trade fair? The government of the province of British Columbia. There were no missions to West Germany to try to persuade people to buy more value-added forest products. The government of Canada wasn't represented either, this government of Conservatives that's going to break into the world market and sell more of Canada's products. Thank goodness we have people like Bob Landucci, entrepreneurs who are willing to overcome the barriers that this government puts in the way of their going into those markets to sell themselves and their products. This government doesn't seem to be interested at all. They couldn't care less if our forest industry went down the tubes. That seems to be the problem with the Social Credit government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MR. SKELLY: If it's not true, what are you doing to get people back to work? What are you doing to get more value added to forest products in British Columbia? Why aren't you standing up on your feet in this Legislature and, for once, telling the Premier — when he's here — that we should be adding more value to our forest products in the province of B.C.?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Surrey will come to order, and would the Leader of the Opposition please address the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I'm asking those members over there to do what they were elected to do in this Legislature during the Premier's estimates, and that is to get up and start talking about adding value to our forest resources here in British Columbia so that we can make more revenue, pay more wages and earn more profits, so that the economy in British Columbia will be restored. You can't blame that on a decline in the resource markets that we have, Mr. Chairman. If 75,000 people are going to trade fairs in Europe to talk about the secondary manufacturing of forest products, there is definitely some interest out there somewhere. But it certainly doesn't reside in this cabinet or in this minister. It certainly doesn't reside here; otherwise we would have had representation there.

"What is more tragic, many of our own citizens are sending their capital out of British Columbia for safer investment elsewhere." That's a quote from the current Premier back in 1974, taking delight in the fact that capital was fleeing the province at that time. We certainly don't take any delight in that at all, Mr. Chairman. We would like to see it coming in the other direction.

Another thing the Premier said back in 1974 that should be compared with what he is saying and doing right now: "School construction," he said, "is far behind current needs." Have you heard that lately, Mr. Chairman? From your own school board perhaps; from school boards all over the province of British Columbia. Now some of them may not say it. They may not make those complaints, because they could be fired if they say it. So some of them don't make those complaints. They're a little worried, because the Premier also said in his little Christmas letter to the editor here that he wanted to restore local control to school boards.

I took a few notes when the Premier was talking in the opening remarks that he made to this Legislature. He said: "Oh, we don't say one thing and then do another like that opposition opposite." He said, "Restore local control," but he's made an unbelievable power grab, seizing the power of local school boards, putting it here in the centralized backrooms of Victoria and going so far as to fire school boards that defied his will — absolutely unprecedented.

He also talked here about hospitals. I'll stick with education for a second, because he said here: "Aid to universities is less." Have you heard that lately? Isn't it amazing how history repeats itself? Ten years after, and the Premier is cutting back on aid to universities at a time when we desperately need trained people, at a time when we desperately need skilled and creative people, at a time when we desperately need employment for our young people and for all the citizens of British Columbia — all those 198,000 who are out of work. What we do in this province under Social Credit is we cut back on assistance to universities. Isn't it amazing how they say one thing and then do another?

He talks about hospitals, and having difficulty building hospitals, and the government cutting back on hospital construction. I got a call from a lady in Port Alberni who had a requirement to replace her hip. She's been in pain for two years, and her doctor tried to get her into Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where they do this kind of surgery on Vancouver Island. She was put on a waiting list of 900 people. Now she was expecting to get her surgery and her hip replacement in September, and she was quite pleased. You only have to wait for two years and a few months, and that's not too bad to suffer in pain. The Premier talks about the hardship "we've" gone through as a province — two years and some months to suffer in pain from a degenerated hip. She was on a waiting list of 900. I don't know where exactly she was on the waiting list.

Nanaimo Regional General Hospital got the message a couple of weeks ago that they were going to have to cut back on their hospital budget, that they were going to have to close an operating room for three months or for the summer months, and that they were going to have to cut back on the number of surgical beds available, so that even if she got to the hospital, she would have difficulty staying there. So they couldn't take her in the hospital. She's recently been told that

[ Page 6730 ]

she might be able to get into the hospital in January 1986, just in time to enjoy Expo.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier says one thing and does another. We appreciated his state of the province message. We appreciated the fact that he has been away in Japan and Korea for a couple of weeks and doesn't really appear to know what is going on in the province. But the Premier shouldn't be criticizing the opposition for taking delight in unemployment rates that he is largely responsible for himself. The Premier shouldn't take delight in criticizing the opposition for the massive borrowings in this province that he is responsible for himself because of his mismanagement and lack of priorities for the province. The Premier shouldn't criticize the opposition. In fact, Mr. Chairman, what kind of a province is this, where a Premier criticizes the opposition? What kind of a Premier is this? He's trying to do our job for us, and we're doing it fairly well.

Mr. Chairman, this government has bungled the British Columbia's economy unbelievably. Absolutely. Even by the criteria that the Premier laid down back in 1975. By every one of these criteria he's bungled the province. If unemployment is the criterion, 198,000 people are unemployed. If borrowing is the criterion, he's increased borrowing in this province 300 percent. If people on welfare is the criterion, he's increased recipients of welfare in this province, and the welfare budget; the welfare budget today is 300 percent of what it was ten years ago. If problems and layoffs in the forest industry are the criteria, they're worse now than they've ever been — than anybody ever contemplated. If the flight of capital from the province, or the lack of investment in the province, is the criterion, it's worse now in British Columbia than anybody ever contemplated. If school problems and university problems and hospital problems are the criteria for government mismanagement, this government is worse than any government ever thought about being.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province has nothing to brag about. Recovery has passed this province by. And the change in unemployment statistics for one month, the only month that the Premier has chosen to make reference to unemployment statistics, the only month that the Premier has taken advantage of quoting the unemployment statistics.... We used to get them from the statistics branch of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business, until they stopped publishing them. But the only month that the Premier chose to quote the unemployment statistics was this most recent month. As I say, Mr. Chairman, we're quite pleased that the number of unemployed in the province has gone down — which could have happened for many reasons. Some of them may have gone to Manitoba. Some of them may have gone to Ontario.

Mr. Chairman, I challenge you. According to some sources I have, in fact there is a negative migration rate in the province of British Columbia right now. People are leaving the province. All you have to do is talk to the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, because that's the information on which they base their statistics: the number of people who are transferring their family allowance addresses out of the province. Health and Welfare Canada says that for the first time in recent history people are now moving away from the province of B.C.; families are moving away from the province of B.C. They can't get employment here, so they're going elsewhere in Canada.

A recent publication, by the way, from the Ministry of Industry in Manitoba indicates that the population is increasing in Manitoba quite dramatically. One of the things that the government of Manitoba is doing is attempting to find employment for all of those people who go there from British Columbia seeking employment under a more cooperative government and one that seems to be more interested in generating employment.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, as I said, this government has nothing to brag about. This Premier has nothing to boast about. This province has done miserably under the management of the Premier of British Columbia, and he has absolutely nothing to be proud of.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that after months of waiting we are now getting the model of the type of government that the Leader of the Opposition says he would implement in British Columbia: the model of excellence is Manitoba. What he would do is exactly what they are doing in Manitoba. I understand they took great pride at their convention in not having to tip their hand on what their policies were, so we sort of have to hunt for how they would run the province. They talk about Manitoba. Well, I have to tell you, Manitoba for three of the last four years has a net out-migration of people. They get one year in which 568 people actually came in, and the Leader of the Opposition calls that a dramatic gain.

[3:15]

I want the members to remember: this is what the word "dramatic" means to the Leader of the Opposition when he cites his model of Manitoba. They've had an out-migration: that is, more people leaving than were coming, in three out of four years. He says that's a good record. He says that's because of the policies of the NDP government in Manitoba. He says "dramatic" is that in one of those four years 568 actually came in. Isn't that amazing! Well, I see the latest statistics on Manitoba. He talks about business bankruptcies. I see that in January to April this year — that's a pretty good cross-section; that's the first quarter of the year — bankruptcies were up 5.9 percent in Manitoba and down 14.8 percent in British Columbia. Now that's the government, because their policies, their lack of action, their tax increases.... Things like a tax on jobs. You want to encourage employers to employ people. Well, the Manitoba policy is to tax you for every employee you have. They collect about $300 million a year, or something like that, taxing jobs. You think employers are encouraged to employ people? Compare that to our policy, where the Minister of Finance says: "Look, we want to help small business; we'll give you a $300 tax credit for every employee you've got now, and every employee you'll have." That's encouraging employment, and that's going to put $150 million in the pockets of small business to provide secure employment, to carry out expansion plans. That's in contrast to the Manitoba model that the leader of the New Democratic Party now says are their policies. These are the ones he's so excited about that he can hardly wait to tell us. Although they did nothing at their convention to tell the people of this province how they would run it, we now know it's Manitoba.

So three out of four years they lose people, but that's good, according to him. British Columbia is, on a yearly

[ Page 6731 ]

basis, still a province of net gain, and substantially. I want to give you an example. The two provinces hit the hardest in the recession were Alberta and B.C. The story is very clear. Recent federal statistics tell you that 100,000 have left Alberta in the last couple of years. British Columbia has been a net gainer. In fact, the story would indicate that while we get people from all over Canada, we got about one-third of the total that left Alberta. That makes our job difficult.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now the Leader of the Opposition has another story. Pretty soon he'll be telling us that it's all right to support legal actions as long as you agree that they're against something you don't believe in. Next he'll be saying something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, sure he will.

Let's just deal with some of things he says he would do. Well, he would give us the Manitoba government. Obviously he would give us a tax on jobs; obviously he believes in the fact that they've been putting up taxes. That will start to drive out business, make it less competitive. It's going to be interesting to see how many of the new business applications that are coming in are people leaving Manitoba, among other places. Certainly it looks like a good market area for us to attract investment, because we do have a more competitive tax environment now in British Columbia, and we don't tax jobs. Let me just deal with that. I'll have some more things to say about Manitoba in a minute.

The Leader of the Opposition criticized health care. Of all the areas in which this government has put a priority during these difficult times, it's been on health care spending. We've had to do some difficult cuts in many areas, but the government's budget for health care is $2.67 billion. It takes 29.5 percent of the budget. This is a 275 percent increase in expenditures in the past ten years. By contrast, the combined rates of inflation rose by only 107 percent. We've been giving a larger and larger share to health care. Obviously it will always be difficult. I know the Leader of the Opposition understands that. But the one area above all others in which this government has placed a priority during these difficult times has been health care. The record shows, both by the amount of the budget and by the increase compared to any other area, that this has been a priority area. Governments have to make tough choices.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about 1974-75 as if the international recession that we've experienced is somehow...that a comparable world condition was taking place in 1974-75. If that's what he's suggesting in trying to compare it.... The public won't buy that either, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I think everybody recognizes that....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have their chance. Only one member on his feet at a time, and the Premier has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you should draw the Premier to order about talking about legislation and other items....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I'm sorry, that's not a point of order. I'll have order in this House, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member can't compare what we've had to face and had to do in trying to deal with the lower economy because of a world recession, particularly in a resource area. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You can't campaign to all the little groups you try to make a deal with and say: "You elect me, and I'll give you an unlimited lid. Take off the lid, and you can have unlimited wage hikes." You can't make those sorts of deals, say you'll throw out the compensation stabilization program, and still tell the people that you're going to save them money, and you won't have deficits and you won't have debt. It doesn't happen that way.

It doesn't happen that you can promise all those things to all those special interest groups and tell the public that at the same time you're not going to run them into debt with larger and larger deficits and more and more money going to interest. There has to be some balance.

It's very clear now that the way in which you can achieve savings is through more efficient government, and the way to encourage business and industry is to be able to have a competitive tax system. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that we're giving something away — some sort of incentives that we're somehow going to pay a heavy price for. Mr. Chairman, these incentives of five years of no provincial income tax if they develop in the areas of municipal-provincial partnership isn't giving anything away if they're not going to come here. But if that's the incentive that brings them here, then what we have is the very thing that we have made our priority — that is, we are not going to be so thirsty for taxes that we would drive or keep industry out. But by attracting them, we will have jobs. We will have economic value being earned, and we will have the multiplier effect.

The member scoffs at 300 or 400 jobs. Each job is important. If it's in the private sector, it's a permanent job. That's what we've always said. We have to encourage the private sector. We have to remove disincentives. Quite frankly, I will admit that our tax burden was too high. It was a disincentive. But you have to find a way so that at the same time that we make it competitive, we do not leave such a gap. We have a high level of public spending that is not supportable.

What we have done over the three years is to get a supportable level of spending, made health care a priority and been able to do what no other government is doing at the same time: contain the deficit to affordable levels and be able to have a more competitive tax regime, which is attracting investment and business and jobs to this province.

Mr. Chairman, you can't do one without the other. I don't know how the New Democratic Party, when it opposed all of the areas in which we had to make tough choices in cutting costs, can stand up and say: "Oh, the solutions are easy now." They were not easy. We could only do them because we have faced some tough choices. Yes, we suffered some political pain.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not selling.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's not selling?

Interjection.

[ Page 6732 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, I thought your pub wasn't selling, and that's why you're back in politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members of this House know that there's only one person to speak at a time, and that is the person that is on his feet. At present the Premier has the floor, and I'd like order, please.

AN. HON. MEMBER: You're attacking small businesses.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all. The small businesses are the beneficiaries of all the tax cuts, plus the special tax credit. Of all the businesses, small business will be the beneficiary of our programs. Of all of the opportunities, small business can be the fastest employer. When you look at the employment statistics that did come out just recently — they talked about the change in increased employment in British Columbia — you'll see it spread over a number of sectors. It isn't confined to any special group. What it does is spread over the broad economic base, and the jobs are all created in the private sector. They're not make-work, short-term jobs. Those jobs were all there in the private sector, Therefore we can presume that they are not the type of jobs that provide a short-term employment and then leave a cost to the government and haven't resolved the problem for the person or the family involved.

Mr. Chairman, the member talks about Manitoba. Manitoba has a deficit and debt which as a percent of their gross domestic product is 60 percent higher per capita than British Columbia's. That's grown substantially and is much higher per capita — the growing debt and deficit — right now than British Columbia's. It's continuing to expand. Now if that's your model, and you support their policies, you can't on the one hand criticize what we've done in trying to develop a manageable deficit, maintain essential services and encourage business investment, say you'd do the same as Manitoba and not take responsibility of saying: "Yes, we're going to spend more money. We're going to give more money in wage increases to all those public service groups, because we've promised it. We're going to wipe out the compensation stabilization plan. We're going to increase spending in all these areas, and we're going to borrow $5 billion or $10 billion or $20 billion." All you have to do is give a figure. The public might understand it. They might go for your approach. But don't pretend you can do both, because Manitoba is showing that you can't. They're now starting to live with the results. You think their figures look good?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your time is up, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I'll be back.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what we have seen is a mini election going on in front of us. I know that, because all we talked about was 1974 and 1975 from both sides of the House. Either that or some other jurisdiction or some other country, how they're doing it, how we would do it, and how they didn't do it; you're a bad guy and I'm a good guy. Basically what we saw was the same argument we see every election in this province. We see the Social Credit saying: "We're for free enterprise and you're not." We hear the NDP saying: "Oh, yeah? We like people and you don't." As if the two are incompatible; as if you can't have a market economy being the driving force of your wealth-creation and still have compassionate people who take part in that. Both sides of this House think the other is incompatible. "You can't have compassion," one side says, "and free enterprise on the other." The other side says: "Well, you can't have free enterprise in a dog-eat-dog world and have compassion."

[3:30]

Let's take a look at the hypocrisy we've heard from both sides of the House today, because they proved it on each other. The Leader of the Opposition went back to 1974 and read back to the Premier some of the things the Premier said then, taking glee in the fact that investment was fleeing, and that there was unemployment. There's no doubt about that; I remember 1974 also. But at the same time, when is the Social Credit going to admit that in 1974-75 we were in a recession in this province? It was not as deep and not of the same kind that we're in today, but there was one.

On the NDP side of the House they say: "Isn't it terrible that we have a deficit?" Are they against deficits? Are they saying that with a downturned economy, an economy in transition and no sale of our products — and if we are selling them then at a lower price — that they'd have no deficit? Mr. Chairman, you'd have to be stupid to believe that. There would be a deficit.

On the other side of the House the Premier is saying: "But all the jobs are from the private sector." All the jobs are from the private sector? We've never had so many public works programs going on at any one time in this province. We have more money going into public spending for public works than at any time in our history. Is that good or bad? Are the projects good or bad? Is the deficit money being spent properly? Those are the questions. Not "You did it, I did it, we wouldn't do it, they did it, you're terrible, you're evil, we're good, you're bad." That's all we're getting.

We have some real problems in this province. I didn't hear those real problems being discussed by either the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition says to the Premier: "You are responsible for the international downturn in the economy." What's the Premier saying? He said: "Well, if there is anything that is produced, we're responsible for it." He points to the latest statistics of 37,000 jobs in one month. The Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out that it's the first time he's talked about those statistics in months, if not years.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful, Mr. Chairman, to have heard an intelligent debate between the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of government about the problems in this province, discussing with one another and with other members of this House what might be done, how we could work together as the people's representatives to address some of those problems?

The first thing we have to do if we are going to do that is the same as personal problems. Before we can deal with our personal problems, we first have to recognize them and own up to them. Then we can get down to solving them. Neither one, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of government, would discuss that. We have problems in the forest industry; we have problems in mining; we have problems in fishing. But do they think they're so bad? Are we so full of despair in this province that we're afraid to even talk about them and discuss with one another possible solutions? Are we so afraid that if we take action we may make a mistake that we take no action at all?

[ Page 6733 ]

I didn't hear from the Leader of the Opposition, during his whole speech, one suggestion as to what he would do if he were the leader of government.

MR. SKELLY: Make a proposal.

MR. LEA: Oh, he says to me: "Make a proposal." What are you going to do: say yes or no? Where are your proposals?

At the NDP convention they brought forward an education policy and said: "Send it back to committee. Bring it back next year." At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition was standing in front of his party saying: "I think there will be an election before next convention." Does that mean they are going to go into it with no education policy?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say at your convention?

MR. LEA: What did they say at my convention? You wait and see what they say. I'll tell you one thing: it won't be full of hypocrisy.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It won't be full of members? Well, wait and see about that, because I'm going to tell you that the only place that this province is polarized any longer is in this House. Out with the citizens of this province, it is the most unpolarized province that we have been in a decade. If you don't believe it, get hold of the latest Decima report and find out for yourself: the most unpolarized province and the most polarized House. That's what we have. I wish I had brought it into the House: the United Party put out an economic proposal for small business, the most comprehensive program that any political party has put forward in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many copies did you print?

MR. LEA: Five thousand. You didn't print any, because you don't have one in your party. You don't have one; in fact, no policy comes out of the Social Credit Party. It may come out of government, but boy, there isn't policy coming out of that party, that's for sure.

I was reading a copy of the Democrat, the NDP newspaper. I read four paragraphs of policy for small business.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you get it?

MR. LEA: They were so stupid they haven't taken me off their mailing list. That's how I got it.

Four small paragraphs on their small business program, four small paragraphs that basically say nothing: is that their program for small business? Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that the NDP saying that they're going to commit bigamy with small business while they're still married to vested interest groups in this province is absolutely ridiculous.

One thing the people of this province are fed up with is political parties that owe their soul and owe their being to vested interest groups, no matter who they are. The only thing about the NDP that is different from the Social Credit is that the NDP are more upfront about who their vested interest groups are. On the other side, those vested interest groups are there.

We have two political parties in this province that have been bought and paid for. They've been bought and paid for by vested interest groups, and there are people in this province who are looking at both of them, and they're saying enough is enough; we would like to have a government in this province that represents everyone in a pluralistic society, not just those vested interest groups that can afford to buy a political party. That's what they're saying.

Mr. Chairman, members other than the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of government have talked in this House about the state of the forest economy in this province, and the fact that the most liberal estimate says that we have 40 years of merchantabletimber left to cut if we continue to cut at the annual allowable rate we're cutting at now — and that is being very liberal. That is a real problem that we have to deal with. If we did all the reforestation now that people are calling for — and we should — there would be a 40-year gap, at least, between that new timber coming on stream and the end of the old cut. And the new timber would not be of the same value — it would not be of the same strength; it would not have the same cellulose content.

We have to take a look at our forest industry, not just for today but for the future. We have to take a look at our education policy, not just for today but in the future. We cannot live in the past, as these two major political parties want to do. Because one is 100 years ahead of the other shouldn't give that one political party any amount of succour. One party in the 1850s and another in the 1950s — why don't we have one for today and tomorrow? Mr. Chairman, did you hear one positive thing come out of either one — the Leader of the Opposition or the Premier — except that they were haranguing each other? That's all they were doing.

MR. SKELLY: We're waiting for you.

MR. LEA: Well, you're waiting for us? I'll send you a copy of our small business paper, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Take a look at it and compare it to your three paragraphs.

MR. BARNES: You wrote it.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't. I didn't write yours. I can't write shorthand.

Now what about the Social Credit? They want people to re-elect them, when they have been one of the most divisive forces in society. They take a poll and find out that people out there are not happy with teachers, and they say: "There's prey. Let's slam them for a while. If people are angry at the teachers, let's get them. The people will be with us. People are not happy with the educational system — let's get it. Let's attack it. Let's use divisiveness — divide and conquer — and attack anybody as long as our polls show us that they're vulnerable today." Maybe not tomorrow. If they did, they'd change their tactics. They run on polls.

We have a party in opposition that is out of ideas. I remember listening to a radio program not that long ago where Stephen Lewis was accusing Eric Kierans of the Liberals of stealing NDP ideas over the years. Eric Kierans said: "You know, you're right. The problem is you haven't had any to steal for the last few years." Still living in the sixties and the fifties, trying to apply the economic policies of those years to a brand-new economy.

[ Page 6734 ]

And on the other side of the House they're a little bit more up to date economically, but, boy, when it comes to winning elections, they don't care who they hurt.

You know, Mr. Chairman, people out there are fed up with both of them. They would like to hear about ideas; they would like to discuss ideas; they'd like to be part of it. I talk to people out there about tripartism, about government, about labour and about business cooperating, and they like it. People on both sides of this House know it's true. Now on the other side of the House they can at least mouth the words; on this side they can't, because the labour movement doesn't want it. So they can't talk about it.

But the truth of the matter is that if you're going to have tripartism work in this province, if you're going to have peace and if you're going to have cooperation, there has to be trust. Can you imagine the day when the trade union leaders and the trade union members in this province could ever sit down with Social Credit with a feeling of trust? They're not going to. Can you imagine the day when business is going to sit down with the NDP in this province with a feeling of trust? They're not going to, because the trust isn't there. There is too much baggage. There's too much history of deceit, and to get this province moving again we have to have that trust. There has to be a new political entity in this province — without baggage — with new people who can sit down.... There has to be a party made up of the pluralistic society we live in, not just representing vested interest groups in society. A pluralistic society demands a pluralistic political party, one that will work with the people with trust, with cooperation, to take this province forward. We don't have to go left; we don't have to go right. We can go forward with trust and cooperation, but it'll take a new broom and a new political party and a new day.

[3:45]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I always have such high hopes when the member for Prince Rupert stands up and says nobody else has been positive, but he's going to be. He then spends all his time attacking both the opposition and the government. But I must say it was a balanced attack. I'll give him credit for that. Then we got.... The positive approach was not policies; it was.... What was it? We need a new party — that was the solution. I guess he missed the first part of my remarks, when I talked about the solutions this government has already in large part introduced, which will work.

There are no miracles to be wrought. There's an economic strategy. It involves partnership with the municipal governments and providing a fair and competitive climate for business. We're able to do that because we've practised some very difficult management through some tough years of international recession, and it's being felt. There is great interest in investment in jobs that will have markets. You're not going to have investment in jobs or companies that will remain if they can't sell the product. In many cases the three are tied up together, and of course, they have to be. For that matter, they require foreign investment if they're to be of the magnitude that provides a lot of jobs, or opens up a whole new industry, and be able to sell the product.

Canada as a market economy is not large enough to support the type of economic benefits that Canadians have set as goals for themselves in the past, during the recession and for the future. I'm always surprised when.... We know we've got to trade.... I was reading Bruce Hutchison just recently, and he talks about this very unusual line from the New Democratic Party convention. He says:

"The recent party convention answered that question in a blazing heresy yet to be explained or understood. It was easy and predictable for the convention to propose vastly increased governmental expenditures and the higher taxes accompanying them, on top of those already enforced by the federal government's first budget. But the heresy is something else altogether. Nothing less than opposition to unlimited economic growth, the most sacred cow and cure-all of all the world's societies.

"...as socialists we must question the notion that increased productivity and securing a competitive edge internationally is the way our economy must go. Unfortunately many socialists have become as obsessed with the logic of maximizing economic growth as the capitalists have. We must remember the real goal of socialism is not rapid economic growth...."'

That's got to be the craziest statement I've ever heard. If we're going to talk about jobs for our people, we can't have statements like that saying that we should deny international participation. We need more, not less, access to international markets.

So we need a broadened economy, and if the member for Prince Rupert didn't hear, our economy has gone through a structural change. The forest industry....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It isn't just a normal dip and curve; it is structurally different. Resources on the world market have all gone through a major change. In trying to encourage them to develop additional products, we've had to keep them competitive, and that is....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The tax reductions help every forest company in this province. I guess you've done an analysis, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. How much has it saved the forest industry? How much do those tax cuts mean to the forest industry?

MR. WILLIAMS: You've got your researcher there; let him tell you. Isn't that the way it works?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm waiting for you to get up and embarrass yourself. I'm waiting for you to get up and embarrass yourself once again, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. Anybody that's worth $80,000 has got to put in full value in this legislative chamber. Anyone that could sell his seat for $80,000 has got to be listened to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. Premier address his remarks to the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I will.

The other thing I was concerned about was the suggestion that somehow this province short-funds post-secondary education — implied in the speech of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) but dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition and his party time and time again. I have to tell you that

[ Page 6735 ]

the taxpayers of this province pay the second-highest costs per student in our post-secondary system of all of the country.

MR. SKELLY: Where do you get that money?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That money comes from the taxpayers.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. members will have their opportunity to stand in debate on the Premier's estimates. The Premier is recognized.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I was interested. It seems to me the Leader of the Opposition was saying what his education critic has been saying: that money collected by the federal government and turned over for established program finances — that our government was not passing it on fairly to the education system. Is that what he's saying? Why were you saying that we're unfair? Because I find it passing strange that we've taken all this criticism publicly from members of your party that we haven't lived up to the terms of the established program financing, and that we're shortchanging education. Do you believe that? Well, I've got to tell you: it's not correct. The established programs financing agreement never broke down money between education and health care. It was block funding on tax points for the total EPF. The province then can allocate the money in the areas of need; all provinces do it.

We've been saying this for a long time, but you never seem to listen. So let me say, that's not just my opinion. I have here a letter written to the federal government by the Finance minister of the province of Manitoba, Vic Schroeder. Obviously you agree with Manitoba on everything, except when one of your misdirected criticisms of our government doesn't agree with what he says. Here's what he says, to do with established program financing. This letter is a long letter. I'll table a copy of it later, because it's been well circulated. He's writing about the Johnson report being incorrect. He says:

"I would also like to take this opportunity to review briefly some of the principles which I believe must guide the review of EPF.

"EPF is a block fund. Federal input through EPF to post-secondary education cannot be divorced from the share the federal government provides for the total of health and post-secondary expenditure.

"Phony arithmetic which artificially splits the payments or redefines and limits the program costs which are being shared through EPF will not be helpful for our review and discussions on EPF. The broadest view must be taken as we begin our dialogue."

He goes on to say in this letter — I may at some point want to read the whole thing — that it has never been agreed to by any province, nor is it in the agreement, that there is an arbitrary allocation of money. We have said that for a long time.

What you have is this. The demographics of provinces are different. So when we take the funding, it is allocated to the areas which have need. Need in health care in this province.... The demographics of the large number of citizens over 65, who need much higher costs in health care, would indicate that our health costs are going to get more attention. The fact that our post-secondary population still, in the way we allocate the money, is the second-highest per pupil in the country, by the last statistics that I've reviewed, is significant. That is the way you measure it. But to promote.... And I've seen it done. It's not just some politicians. It's easy to understand why you do it — why you misuse it and abuse that agreement, to say that we're shortchanging federal dollars. But I've seem some who....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) will have his opportunity in debate when the present speaker takes his place.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let me once again explode the myth that somehow we have offended against the EPF and misdirected money. Quite probably there are many critics — some of them in public life — who have never read the EPF agreement. Well, I've got to tell you that there's one NDPer who has read it: the Finance minister of Manitoba, and he doesn't agree with the things you've been saying. So let's put that to rest.

So Mr. Chairman, that deals with a couple of areas of criticism that go into a number of areas that probably have been well canvassed during other estimates during this sitting.

MR. SKELLY: It's interesting to hear the Premier's response to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who has since left the House. I think he has an appointment with the press, possibly, or possibly he is reading the Decima polls or developing some positive policies.

But it is interesting what the Premier chooses to quote or not to quote in the Legislature. It is a problem, of course, to deal with positive policies during estimates, because what we are doing during estimates.... The member for Prince Rupert should know this all too well, Mr. Chairman, because he has been here for the better part of the last 12 or 13 years. I think he is winding up an illustrious career.

The Premier talks about the funding for post-secondary education. He uses an argument that nobody has ever used in this Legislature, at least on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. Everyone on this side of the House knows what the EPF is all about. They tried to foist it on our government when we were in office. It was only when you took over that your ministers accepted the EPF on the current basis.

[4:00]

But the statistics the Premier should be looking at are those that indicate — to quote his own Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — that British Columbia has the worst student-aid system in the country. That's a quote from his own minister. I challenge his own minister to table that information, but he's already made it public. It's available in Hansard. The Premier could read it if he likes. We have one of the lowest participation rates in the country. We have fewer high school graduates going to university from British Columbia than high school graduates from other provinces in Canada. There is no question that the criticisms that are levelled against this government's post-secondary education policy are valid, and they're accepted by virtually everybody in the university community.

The Premier thinks, I guess, that he's got one over on us if he can quote a letter from Vic Schroeder that refutes an argument that we weren't making. What we're saying, Mr.

[ Page 6736 ]

Chairman, is that this government is totally irresponsible in the way it manages the post-secondary system of education in this province. It spends none of its own money on post-secondary education; it spends what it gets from the federal government. This government does not participate in post-secondary education, which is one of its responsibilities as a government, and that's a shame.

Do you know what that means, Mr. Chairman? It means if somebody wants a job as a professional in British Columbia, they have a better chance if they come from elsewhere. It means that if we hire professionals in various categories of employment in British Columbia, then we have to hire them from outside the province, while our prospective students sit here on unemployment insurance and welfare. That's the irresponsibility of this Premier and the irresponsibility of his government.

We had a president of a university resign. He said that he could manage with restraint — that wasn't a problem — but he had a government in office in British Columbia that was constantly changing the goalposts. Nobody knew from one day to the next, from one month to the next, from one year to the next what the policy was going to be with respect to post-secondary education in the province. He wasn't criticizing the restraint per se. We all realize that during tough economic times you have to cut back. You have to hold the line on public expenditures. Nobody on this side of the House has ever advocated unlimited expenditures.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The problem, as Mr. Pedersen pointed out, is that the government has no policy goal with respect to universities and no vision with respect to the role of universities in society or the role of universities in our economy. That's the criticism we have levelled at this government, and obviously a criticism that this minister hasn't heard.

We have proposed solutions. The member for Prince Rupert has misread the Democrat, because we passed our education policy at that last convention, and I'll tell you that Mr. Hutchison has too. I hate to criticize a worthy gentleman like Bruce Hutchison, who has been a journalist for many years. The simple fact is that a paper on technological change was presented to our convention. Concern was expressed in that paper that if technological change takes place at a rapid rate and there are no systems or mechanisms in place to allow people to change into new jobs or develop new approaches, then there are going to be serious problems, as there have been in this province of British Columbia because we have no policy provincially with respect to technological change and its impact on our citizens. The Premier talks about the market economy: "Let the private market take care of it. Let everything adjust in its own way without the government becoming involved, or trade unions or companies becoming involved, in order to make sure the technological change doesn't cause serious impact on people's lives."

By the way, the discussion paper that Mr. Hutchison talks about was not adopted as policy by our convention. It's an important fact that may have slipped Mr. Hutchison's observation. But it was accepted by the convention for further discussion.

Political parties in this province should be discussing these kinds of issues. The Social Credit Party should be discussing these kinds of issues. This Legislature should be discussing these kinds of issues. It is certainly a point of discussion out there in the province, by those very vested interests that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talks about. Those trade unions are discussing the impact of technological change, are discussing ways that technological change can take place, but not in such a way that its impact is borne by workers who lose their jobs. Instead they are proposing that the impact be dealt with by society as a whole, including government, unions and business. So people are dealing with the issue out there. It's unfortunate that it isn't being dealt with here. I suppose it's just another measure of the irresponsibility and the lack of concern on the part of this government.

Now the Premier says that health care in the province of British Columbia is a priority. Well, thank goodness they don't have other priorities, because people are suffering. People who require the services of our hospitals are on waiting lists. In the case of Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, as I mentioned, the waiting list is 900 people long.

What has been the response of the Ministry of Health? What has been the response of the hospitals, because their budgets have been limited? The response of the hospital is that they've had to close an operating room for the summer of 1985, and they've had to shut down surgical beds, so that this woman — one of the very senior citizens that the Premier talks about and expresses such concern about; the fact that they require more expenditure on their health care and require that health care more than other age groups in society — this senior citizen that I was talking about is not going to be able to be treated and to receive a hip replacement until January 1986. If that's the measure of the Premier's priorities, what a shameful operation this Premier is running. That's one example of what's happening all over the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's her name?

MR. SKELLY: Well, I won't tell you her name. I don't think it'll do her much good if you know it.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier talks about manageable deficits. He compares Manitoba's deficits with the province of British Columbia. When this Premier first started managing deficits, we didn't have any. Now he's managed it to the point where we're almost $5 billion in the hole, in terms of accumulated deficits. When this Premier begins to manage something, everybody should get worried about it. When this Premier begins to establish priorities, everybody starts to get worried, because when the Premier gets involved in something, it's inevitably botched up and mismanaged. That's the problem. That may sound a little bit negative, but it's hard to sound any different when you consider the serious problems that are facing this province.

The Premier talks about the multiplier effect on private sector jobs. He doesn't seem to realize that there's a similar multiplier effect that applies to jobs in the public sector. In fact that multiplier effect applies to jobs regardless of where they originate. For example, for every person you lay off or eliminate, for every job you eliminate in the public sector, you eliminate 0.7 jobs in the private sector. It's a formula that economists use all the time, whether they're public or private sector jobs. Every ten schoolteachers you lay off results in the elimination of seven jobs in the communities where those teachers work, and jobs in the private sector providing goods and services that are used by those teachers. Whether you eliminate janitors or construction workers, human resource

[ Page 6737 ]

workers, child care workers, all of those kinds of jobs....It doesn't matter which job you eliminate, you eliminate the spinoff effect and the multiplier effect of those jobs.

The Premier seems to think that if any employment is going to be created in this province, it's going to be created by the private sector, and nothing can be further from the truth. The private sector generally follows the public sector in terms of its confidence in the economy. If government shows confidence in the people of this province, confidence in the economy, if government is willing to invest in this province, then the private sector generally comes on side and becomes a part of that confidence.

The Premier compares Manitoba with British Columbia. It's a fact that when government confidence in the economy declines, then private sector confidence in the economy and private sector investment decline also. That's been the problem here in British Columbia. Total capital investment in the province....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, we're not saying that. We're saying that you cannot separate the public sector and the private sector. They don't operate as two separate entities. If they're going to be successful they have to work together. Nobody is suggesting that there should be unlimited expenditure in one sector or the other. That doesn't make sense; it's silly. And it's silly to attempt to put those kinds of words in people's mouths. Both sectors have to work together.

It's interesting when you track the decline in investment in British Columbia. Total investment in the province declined in 1982 by 15 percent; 1983, by 8.1 percent; 1984, by 5.8 percent. There has been a period of consistent decline in investment in the province. That's been tracked by private investment declines as well: minus 24.6 percent in 1982; minus 14.3 percent in 1983; minus 1.7 percent in 1984. The simple fact is that when the government refuses to express its confidence in the people of this province and in the economy, the private sector moves away as well. They simply will not go along with what they see happening in British Columbia.

The Premier also talks about policy stability. I mentioned policy stability with respect to universities. The reason Mr. Pedersen quit his job at UBC and left the province was because he couldn't take the uncertainty of policy with respect to post-secondary education. Other people have quit as well, not simply Mr. Pedersen. Mr. Pedersen was not necessarily that favourable to the NDP. He saved a few licks for the NDP while he was at it. He said that the difficulty in this province was not restraint; it was the uncertainty, the lack of goals, the lack of objective, the lack of vision that this party has in government. That's what we need in a government in this province.

The Premier also talked about lower taxes attracting investment. Look at the tax information that the Premier himself provides in budget speeches and annual reports. Personal income as a percentage of federal tax: 30.5 percent in 1975, 44 percent in 1985. Between '75 and '85, corporation income has gone up; gasoline tax has gone up; diesel per gallon has gone up — it has doubled; retail sales tax, a major revenue generator in this province, has gone up from 5 percent to 7 percent; cigarette taxes have gone up....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: And we supported that.

Cigarette taxes have gone up from 8 cents a package to 62 cents a package. Hospital insurance: nil in 1975, $5.50 a day in 1985. Medical services premiums: $60 for a single person, now $204. If you don't consider that a tax on employment.... Every company that has a collective agreement in British Columbia pays that increased tax on the part of its employees, and it amounts to a tax on employment in this province — a $432 medical premium for a family.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was interested in the Leader of the Opposition's explanation of the information from their convention contained in the Hutchison article. The way Mr. Hutchison put it seems more consistent with the statement of the new member from Vancouver East, quoted in the Times-Colonist on December 4. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition could comment on this:

"Williams blasted the Social Credit government for scurrying around looking for outsiders to bring in money. 'The job to be done is right here in Victoria...around the province.' He called for reforestation programs and special employment programs on the Island and in the interior. 'The answer is right here in British Columbia. It's self-sufficiency in British Columbia that has to he our goal."'

We earn the largest part of our economy outside the province. That's how we have the standard of living that we do. That's how we've earned it in the past. You're not going to earn it by putting a wall around the province and earning it inside. In fact, the quickest way to restore the economy is to attract additional investment and encourage our own people to invest. The sort of statement that we don't need outside money, and don't want outside investment in our province, isn't encouraging for us in getting that money. It isn't encouraging to those who would get jobs from it when you have a prominent member of that party making statements like that, that that's the policy of the New Democratic Party. Because that seems more consistent with what I read in the Hutchison column. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might want to separate himself from that statement, Mr. Chairman.

Further to the British Columbia economy and the way it develops, I want to talk about jobs in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's the most expensive clipping service in town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[4:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver East isn't earning his money today.

I want to talk about your point about public sector employment as the answer, in dealing with the private sector. You can't borrow scads and scads of money to unrealistically employ people in the public sector. You used the example of laying off teachers. We're only returning to the pupil-teacher ratio that we had in 1976. That was higher than the PTR during the previous administration. We're only returning it to there. It seems realistic, particularly in these times in which the taxpayers don't have a lot of money.

Where are the areas that have been hard hit by the recession, which I acknowledge? Where are these sectors? The sectors that have been hurt have been primary industry, manufacturing and construction, some in the service. The area

[ Page 6738 ]

that has received the least cut is the public service. If you see where the jobs have been lost, they have been lost in those areas particularly where jobs depend on sales of resource products — whether it's mining or whether it's forestry related. The jobs have been lost in those areas where they depend on international purchase in an international marketplace.

We have not been unrealistic in the way that we have tried to deal with having an affordable public service that reflects the ability of the taxpayers to pay. It's not unfair to say to those who have suffered because of the international marketplace that we're not going to burden them with either costs or debt — because as citizens the debt becomes a part of them — more than we have to during a difficult time, by not reaching realistic targets and realistic levels there. Our concern was that the unemployed workers in forestry and mining and other areas of course had to be assured that there weren't those that were protected from the recession at their expense, either in direct payment or future debt.

Yes, we have a deficit now, and we have a debt, and we had a surplus going into the recession. You can't criticize us as being heartless and cruel in the provision of public services, and then say that we haven't tried to achieve a deficit that we could manage — which we are reducing — in order to pay those hospitals you say need more money, in order to pay education that you say needs more money. We haven't tried to unreasonably balance the budget, but we've tried, and I would say successfully, to balance all of the public interest — on the financial side, something that we could manage, and on the social side. We have borrowed money during this recession, when the tax system did not send enough money to support those essential parts of our service. We have borrowed money for education and health care and in areas of helping people who — many through no fault of their own — are in unfortunate circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, you can't on one hand say that we're wasteful, that we've gone into debt, and on the other hand say that we don't spend enough money in these areas of health care and education and providing the safety net for people. What we've achieved is a balance. But you're out there promising more money for these things. At the same time, in here you're criticizing us for the deficit we have.

MR. NICOLSON: When did Canada's recession end?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, it's ended in British Columbia. We're in a growth rate of about....

MR. NICOLSON: January.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. the member for Nelson-Creston will come to order. All hon. members in the committee will be given every opportunity to participate in the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This debate is obviously going to continue for the next one, two or three years as we continue to grow, and the members opposite are going to have to continually reappraise what they have been saying now and look at the success we are achieving, because it's working.

The suggestion that this government somehow caused the international recession hasn't washed with anybody. We had the most difficult task in the country to deal with — the most difficult problem because of our resource dependency. Everybody understands that. And we faced up to the toughest challenge. The people of B.C. faced up. They can take a lot of pride, because while some people were just standing around criticizing and trying to whip up demonstrations — not to be part of the problem but against the government for political purposes — the ordinary British Columbians were facing up to it, and they've done it. They accepted it, and now they're starting to see it working. They're seeing investment and they're seeing business, and they'll continue to see it this year and next year, and they'll continue to see it from then on, because all of the things we have done — some with great difficulty; some have been very painful decisions — are working. And that is why today we can go and we can say to people: "Look, you can come and invest in British Columbia and create jobs. The tax cuts are sustainable. They're not just something to attract you now. Here's what we've done. There are our public spending estimates." These are sustainable, but other governments that didn't attest to it are going to have some trouble. The other governments that didn't face the problem are going to have trouble. Their people are going to face trouble this year, next year and the year after. And you'll start to see that.

So I don't mind the introduction of the Manitoba model into this Legislature as the ideal governmental policy for the times, and the comparing of results of what's happening in Manitoba and here. I'm going to be watching very closely over the next couple of years what happens in Manitoba and what's happening in British Columbia. I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition has made that his yardstick and where his spiritual guidance is coming from as far as policies is concerned, because, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that our policies have been correct. We did not run from the problem when we were faced with it in '82 and '83 and '84. We didn't run; we faced it. I can remember when we introduced the compensation stabilization program — oh, it was such a wicked program; oh, it was terrible; how could you put those limits on? At that time the limits were 8 to 12 percent. But because we recognized that we had a problem and had compensation increases which provided no extra service — nice for the person who got it, but at a time when miners and loggers and others were losing their jobs because of the recession.... And I can remember the criticism over there; 8 to 12 — oh, that was awful. It was awful what this government was doing, putting those sorts of limitations on. Today it's more realistic, but every time there's an adjustment — oh, all of a sudden it's awful again. But you've got to know that we've been successful, moving into the Canadian mainstream of costs for public services, where we had costs that couldn't be supported.

I'd like everyone to make the most money in the world, but it's got to apply equally across the board — private sector and public sector. You can't have one group disproportionately getting increases that aren't afforded and job security which isn't there for others. Quite frankly, that continues to be a major check and balance for the taxpayers of British Columbia, and will continue to be. We cannot have the runaway distortions that we had in the past. As we ease into cost-competitiveness in compensation with the rest of the country.... It hasn't been abrupt, but we're easing into it. We're no longer unreasonably.... No longer are compensation costs, then, competing for the direct services that they supply. There's more money left in the allocation in those budgets for the actual services, the things that are

[ Page 6739 ]

required for people — or maybe the amount of money directly for people — so that it isn't all eaten up by those who are hired to deliver the service. It hasn't been unrealistic. It's been very equitable. I want to say it's a permanent part of this government's policies and will continue to be. I would suggest that it would be folly.... The Leader of the Opposition has suggested in the past that they'd take it off — that he doesn't believe in the CSP program. Because that's an important element of making sure that more money goes to those in need rather than those delivering the service.

All of these areas of having to do those sorts of things were not easy choices to make and not easy to do, but the government did them. And because we've done that, we're now able to have a more competitive tax structure. And because we've got that, we're going to get the investment and the jobs. And we're going to continue to travel. It's nonsense for anyone to suggest that we can have a little internal economy with a wall around it and that all the things will be done in here. You couldn't support the standard of living our people can achieve and the one I want to see them have with that sort of nonsensical financial policy. You're going to have to have external investment and external trade, along with investment by our own people and our own trade, in order to provide jobs for British Columbians. We're at a geographic disadvantage in this country, shipping west to east. With a small consuming market here, our distance to the larger Canadian market makes it very difficult to compete. But we are at the geographic centre as far as the Pacific Rim is concerned. Therefore we've got to concentrate on the most logical market in which we have an advantage, and that we are doing.

Mr. Chairman, there was one other area I wanted to mention, but I haven't got the note. I'll bring it up when I next get up to speak.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We have some very special people visiting us in the precincts today. Sister Eileen Pautler of the Cloverdale Catholic School is here with 33 of her grade 7 students, and I would ask the members to please make them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: First of all, with reference to the article that the Premier is quoting as part of his research for debate on these estimates, nobody has ever suggested in this party or, I assume, in that party that we limit investment to investments that come from British Columbia or Canada. That would be ridiculous, as any first-year economics students could tell you and have obviously told him. It doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that if there is confidence in the economy locally — on the part of the people who provide goods and services here in British Columbia to the people who live here and work here, as well as goods for export — then we are going to attract investment from overseas. I'm told by investors that the criteria for investing in a particular economy are policy stability, stability with respect to taxes and government charges, and labour relations stability, which is a key element. What the Premier has been doing over the last several years is totally fouling up the kinds of things that could attract investment to British Columbia.

That's a part of the problem. People in British Columbia have voted against this government by keeping their savings in the bank. We have one of the highest savings rates in Canada right here in British Columbia, because people are not prepared to invest in the climate of uncertainty that this Premier has created in this province. If our own people, who are most familiar with the situation in British Columbia, are unwilling to invest, or to seek partners from overseas in joint ventures and that type of thing, then offshore investors are certainly not going to come here. Look at the projects....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They won't come here because of you guys who supported FIRA.

[4:30]

MR. SKELLY: I think the Minister of International Trade and Investment must be the minister with the least to do of any minister in the current cabinet. Investment has been steering clear of the province of British Columbia. They've been skipping over British Columbia and going to the provinces in eastern Canada.

The Premier also mentioned the compensation stabilization program. Anybody who reads Hansard will know that we voted against that legislation for the simple reason that it was unfair, that it directed its impact against certain citizens of British Columbia rather than sharing the burden equally. We were not against, by the way, the stabilization of wage demands. We think that that's an absolute necessity in any economy and in any sector. In fact — and I'm going to give something else for the Premier to attack — in other countries, such as Australia, accords have been reached among trade unions, government and industry which have had the effect of lowering wage demands.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know what you're talking about. What a lot of garbage! Go there and find out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As you have heard before, all hon. members will be given a chance to participate in the debate.

MR. SKELLY: There are ways of achieving stabilization of compensation — not by ramming and jamming it down the throats of employees, not by coercion, which this government seems to use when negotiation will do. It has been achieved elsewhere by accords among workers, government and industry. In the same way stabilization of public sector wages across this country has been achieved not by ramming it down the throats of employers and employees in the public sector, but by negotiating the stabilization and the reduction of compensation demands, both in the public sector and in the private sector. It's been achieved in other provinces of this country without any loss of employment in the public sector.

Now mechanisms have been developed — attrition, that kind of thing. But when governments seek to cooperate as good employers with their employees rather than to coerce them, then those employees respond, as I have said, in the way that Canadians always do in hard times: they seek solutions. They join together with the employers to seek common solutions to the problem. Nobody in a democratic society, as British Columbia is, wants to be forced to do something.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

[ Page 6740 ]

If the government seeks to cooperate with them, they don't mind joining in that effort, provided the effort and the burden are shared equally. That's not what the Premier did here in British Columbia. Instead, he rammed it down the throats of our employees in the public sector and created those serious problems he talked about, with people demonstrating in the streets and that kind of thing. It happened in no other province in Canada. No other province in Canada had the kind of reaction that this Premier had to his compensation stabilization program. Yet if you check the statistics, Mr. Chairman, you will find that most of the provinces — in fact all of the provinces in Canada — have lowered the level of compensation increases in line....

AN HON. MEMBER: Follow the leader.

MR. SKELLY: No. In fact, it was taking place before this province suddenly got interested in their program. When the Premier talks about 12 percent being much too high, it was because he didn't realize that this trend was taking place all across Canada, and in fact he followed the trend rather than leading it, which is typical of this government in British Columbia. Talk about building a wall around this province; this government doesn't look to see what's happening outside of British Columbia, to see what has been achieved by cooperation rather than the kind of confrontation that this government has attempted to generate in this province between employers, employees and government.

Now the Premier talks as if the policy of Social Credit is to share poverty. He says that if people are suffering in the private sector out there, in the forest industry, in the mining industry.... If people are suffering out there, then we should make the public sector suffer as well. Share the suffering. Share the poverty, which this Premier has in part created. He said: "Look at all these resource industries. The reason B.C. is in such economic straits right now is because the resource industries have suffered." Other provinces have mining industries. Other provinces have forest industries. None has suffered as badly as this province has.

This province hasn't recovered, when some of those other provinces are in a process of recovery and are producing positive statistics. The reason this province has been held back is because of the economic policies of this minister and the incompetence of his government. That's why I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier hasn't referred to it.... He's referred to a lot of clippings from local newspapers, and letters that were written by the Manitoba Minister of Finance. But that's why I mentioned the secondary forest products manufacturing sector in the province of British Columbia that the government is doing virtually nothing about and nothing to assist.

If we want to develop more jobs in the forest industry, if we want to attract more investment to the forest industry, then the place we should be doing it is in the secondary manufacturing end of the industry, where we are putting together components for finished products, where we are actually producing finished products. The government has paid very little attention, if any, to that sector.

Now I'm a little bit worried that they might pay some attention to it, and it's going to collapse in the same way as the other sectors the government has prioritized. But what I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the government hasn't done what a responsible, competent and able government would have done to protect British Columbians from the worst impact of the recession. Instead they have attempted to share the poverty, share the suffering.

The Premier congratulates the citizens of British Columbia for coming through it in such grand style. I wish he could see some of those thousands of people who line up for food baskets in food lines in the city of Vancouver — in fact in virtually every community in the province of British Columbia. The food bank in Vancouver distributes more food than similar food banks all across Canada in a single day.

The problem is right here in British Columbia, and a lot of those people that have been humiliated by this government are people who have lived in this province for years — my constituents. People get together at the unemployment action centre in Port Alberni who have been living there for generations. People with 20 years' seniority in the forest industry are now without any prospect of employment because of this government's irresponsibility, because of this government's lack of competence and lack of good management, because of this government's lack of foresight. They end up on the welfare lines and in the food lines around this province.

This Premier hasn't done anything worthwhile for those people by sacking public sector employees. This Premier hasn't done anything for them, anything to their benefit, except perhaps to eliminate the jobs of some of their spouses or family members who might otherwise have helped to see them through the recession. What he's done, of course, Mr. Chairman, through his restraint program is taken away their homes and the assets that they worked all of their lives to accumulate; he has taken away everything that they ever worked and saved for. This Premier, with his restraint program and his mismanagement of the economy, has caused them unbelievable suffering. All of his efforts to reduce the size of the public sector and to ignore the need for job creation and the need to diversify the economy have done nothing to help that unemployed forest industry worker who has seen his job dry up and his job prospects dry up under the Social Credit government's mismanagement.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've been listening with a great deal of interest to the Leader of the Opposition display his total ignorance of the international marketplace. I have listened to him not only today, but indeed on previous occasions, hold up that great country, Australia, as an example of how labour and management and the government should cooperate. I don't know where the Leader of the Opposition is getting his material from, and I don't know whether he has ever been to Australia. But I happened to spend some portion of my vacation there in January, and paid a fair amount of attention to what is happening in that great country. As many of you know, I have a great affinity for that country, which shares the same Queen as I share and whose roots came from the same country as a lot of Canadians come from. So I have a great affinity for that country. In the international marketplace we are partners, supplying many of the same materials to many of the same customers in the world. So I have a reasonably good working knowledge of what's going on.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It makes me laugh, Mr. Chairman, to listen to the Leader of the Opposition hold up the

[ Page 6741 ]

Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, as the leading example in the world of getting along with labour and with management. When I was there in January, there were 22 ships outside of Newcastle harbour. And what were they waiting for? They were waiting to load coal for the international marketplace. But what was the problem? The railway in New South Wales was closed down because of a strike. The very day I left Australia to return to my homeland here in British Columbia the headlines in the papers were that the railway was firing 700 engineers from that rail line that runs from the coal fields in the Hunter Valley through to the port of Newcastle. That's the type of cooperation that you're talking about.

The Australian dollar, which three years ago used to cost me $1.40 Canadian, is now down to somewhere in the vicinity of 90 cents Canadian; so in less than three years it has fallen over 50 cents. If that's the type of cooperation that you want, and if that's the way the country is going to be led, I don't think you should hold it up as an example.

I also have to laugh to myself, inwardly.... Really, I feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition when he starts talking about employment. The opposition has been absolutely against every single project that this government has done to put British Columbia and Canada in a position to serve the international marketplace and to serve the other provinces — like the highways, like the port facilities, like the rail transportation facilities, jobs that were happening in British Columbia in a time of world recession. They were against the northeast coal project, which provided us with a new northern transportation system and a new port in Prince Rupert, and provided thousands and thousands of jobs during a recession, when nothing was happening — not in Australia, not in the United States of America, not in Europe, not in any other single country in the world. It was providing jobs here in British Columbia and putting this country in a position to serve that burgeoning international trade which is going to happen.

They sit over there, and the guy from Vancouver East, the $80,000 man, laughs like a hyena, and displays in this Legislature his complete lack of knowledge of the international marketplace.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will withdraw that. He just laughed, like the $80,000 representative from Vancouver East.

You see, they are so shallow in their thinking and so shallow in their arguments. Here we are building major highways to the interior of the province, which again is part of the infrastructure necessary to serve the international marketplace. We have new ports. The only major rail reconstruction taking place probably anywhere in the world is happening here in western Canada. What did they do when the Crow rate was going to go? Did they support it? No, they criticized this government for standing in this Legislature and saying that things had to change. Every single thing that we have done, they have criticized. So their arguments are really quite shallow. I'd use another word, Mr. Chairman, but you might now allow me to.

[4:45]

1 do want to set the record straight on what has happened in Australia. A year ago last December, when I was in Korea — one of the countries that is supplied with coal from Canada and from Australia — there was a strike in New South Wales and Korea was not getting the coal from Australia. If you say that's the type of cooperation.... Here in this province, what have we had? We've had one major lockout, strike — call it what you may — in the pulp industry in the last four or five years. We have had relatively good labour peace in British Columbia in the private sector. We are an example on the international marketplace, because they realize that we are a stable supplier.

You people in the opposition would send out the message that British Columbia is not a reliable supplier. You'd like to have that happen because you'd like to have the economy fail and you'd like to see more unemployment, because you think that might help you gain power. But I'll tell you, you're being irresponsible. You're not working for the citizens of British Columbia.

I want to tell you, British Columbia has been a reliable supplier. We've been a reliable supplier of lumber products. We have been one of the most reliable suppliers of coal in the marketplace anywhere, save, probably, and except South Africa. We've certainly been more reliable in the international marketplace than the United States. We have certainly been more reliable in the international marketplace than Australia — the other major supplier. When it comes to our mining industry, we have certainly been a reliable supplier of copper and our other minerals that go to the marketplace.

So I want to tell you, if you put it all together, we have overcome a reputation in the international marketplace which you left when you were chucked out of government in 1975. It's been by going out there and selling and sitting across the desk and talking about our policies and being able to fulfill them. That's why we are gaining on a daily basis in that marketplace. For you to stand up and say that you want us to deal with labour and management like the government of Australia.... I want to tell you something. There is only one area in Australia that is really growing. It happens to be Queensland. Queensland is one of the few states in Australia that has a free-enterprise government. I want to tell you that they're growing by leaps and bounds. If the Australian gross national product is up, it's due in part to the tremendous growth that is happening in Queensland. So that should be an example. As a matter of fact, there are a number of people moving to Queensland from New South Wales, from Victoria state, and....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and from Manitoba — not quite.

So I thought that I should inform the House, having some firsthand information, plus papers that I get on a bi-weekly basis and keep fairly up to date on what is happening in Australia. As I say, I can't allow the Leader of the Opposition to stand up here and put forth this great shining example, because they happen to have a prime minister there who comes from the sort of more socialist spectrum of politics. I thought I should indulge the House for just a few moments and set the record straight.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If I could suggest, I will agree that there were some early successes in Australia, and it's fallen apart — those agreements which the minister has talked about. I also know that the difficulties they're having are causing them to have to change many of their policies on the spur of the moment. The dollar, which was initially

[ Page 6742 ]

devalued as a strategy, is now out of control because of economic problems. The government had to introduce an emergency mini-budget in May this year. They're cutting $1.25 billion out of the budget, because their spending is creating a problem that they can't afford because of deficit and debt. You now have them changing the focus. The industrial pact which was there has fallen apart, as the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has said. A pact that appeared to be working didn't last long. They now have a dollar that they're having to prop up with a number of emergency measures, including the May cuts in budget spending by the Labour Party in Australia.

If that's the second model that the leader of the NDP says is their policy, I've got to say that the success doesn't last long and the tough results are not far behind, because on a daily basis those things are happening there.

The Leader of the Opposition implied that the government's restraint program somehow caused the recession and all the unemployment in the forest industry and the mining industry, and that they'd all be working if we hadn't had a restraint program. That's nonsense. He somehow implies that things were different here from any other part of Canada.

Let me tell you, you don't have to look very far when the two provinces that were built on resources are right next door to each other — wealthy Alberta and British Columbia. Alberta's unemployment tripled during the recession; ours doubled. They're both bad, but theirs tripled. Alberta has been in negative growth for four straight years. The last two years this province has been in plus gross provincial product growth. Alberta has had out-migration for those four years — as I said earlier, a third of them coming to B.C. In the last couple of years that out-migration has been 100,000.

I've got to tell you that during that same period we've had a plus in migration, which has compounded part of our problem, because it has accelerated the number of people seeking work. It has extraordinarily increased our population over normal growth. We're getting it not only in immigration but immigration from outside the country. We also have a continuing immigration, which when you add it up substantially increases the number of people seeking work in this province.

To suggest, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party does, that somehow our restraint program caused all the problems, and that these people are not working.... You only have to look next door at Alberta as a comparison to see that it wasn't isolated. This province, which is also resource based and also suffering in those same areas, did not have the same degree of problem as Alberta during that period. Quite frankly, the figures are there to see. The economies are there. We have now been in a positive growth rate for the last two years and will continue to do so.

If he's trying to say that trimming the public service has caused seven unemployed for every job lost, he's got to know that those who lost their jobs lost them in areas like construction, which was the biggest area, and in manufacturing and in primary and total goods production. These are the jobs that were lost during the recession. According to the record, it was a total of 63,000 jobs. These were private sector jobs; they had nothing to do with the public sector. Total service producing is minus 5 percent. Yet people stopped building houses because interest rates are too high because of inflationary policies and deficits that are incurred on the federal level — the type of spending that used to be initiated and encouraged by your party.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And supported by your brother.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sure, that's who.... Quite frankly, every time the Leader of the Opposition makes one of these sorts of wild accusations around the province that we caused the recession.... Then he has to get a new element of federal responsibility tossed in from the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) to try to help him wiggle off another hook.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, listen, I don't need to make you look silly; you do it yourself. You don't need any help from me. I just don't want you to ever stop. I love you just the way you are. Don't ever change and don't look back.

Mr. Chairman, another area of our government's policy, although it would have to be Canadian policy....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, we are doing very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I certainly will, over time, but I'll tell the people, who are more important.

But an area that would be of great assistance to the total Canadian economy is that of supporting broader trade with the U.S. and more access to their market. We have a free trade agreement with them to do with the auto pact. That has worked well. I don't suppose, given the chance to look back now on the world automotive industry, that we would have an auto industry without having that access to the U.S. market, because of our small consuming base and our ability to get value of industry of scale. What we've got to do is.... I'm advocating by negotiation, sector by sector, greater free trade with the U.S. Certainly all negotiations....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, on a broad basis, but you would negotiate it. I have to tell you, we already have a free trade agreement in the world that is operating. It happens to operate in one of the areas you like to quote, the Scandinavian countries, that quite often have socialist governments. They have a free trade pact among them. They are a natural market. As a free trading group, they have another agreement with the European common market.

It is nonsense to suggest that in North America we will ever reach our potential unless we have security and access to the U.S. market. You've got to have that access not only for future potential; you've got to have that access to stop the type of thing that is happening now, and that is that without that, they can respond to pressures. They can start to restrict our goods. They can restrict hogs. They can restrict a number of things where you have no security. They can, as bills in their Congress would suggest, restrict our forest industry even more. But if we have the types of agreements that have proven successful in the auto pact, we can have that same security. We can have greater opportunity. But the biggest

[ Page 6743 ]

thing we will have is the security that the type of protectionism that threatens our forest industry and threatens other sectors of our economy will not be present.

We will not be vulnerable; we will have more opportunity. I certainly am going to make my presentations as part of that when I have an opportunity in meeting with elected leaders of the United States. I think there is a lot to gain for both of us. I think the days of trying to get political popularity in Canada by bashing the U.S. are gone. People recognize that their economy drives the world. We sit next to it, and we would have greater protection and greater understanding of what we've got and what we can do. We don't sell our political soul. We don't lose our own political destiny. We don't lose our laws. We don't lose anything, but we have a lot to gain. We are more vulnerable without agreeing. We are more vulnerable without access, and we have less opportunity.

I believe it to be an important time for Canada. That's not just me. The four western Premiers have agreed with that. So do most economists in Canada. If you have the latest papers of the C.D. Howe Institute, they make very strong arguments in reports to do with free trade. They point out the advantages.

[5:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

But what you've got to look at is not that we can make it very positive but at what will happen if we don't. What will happen if we don't get some long-term stability between the U.S. market and Canada is that we will always be vulnerable to political decision. Some politicians respond, even though it's not in the best long-term interests of their own people, to their constituents from time to time.

Right now, I'll tell you, if you're worried about the workers in the forest industry, that they are threatened because we have no long-term agreement on access to the U.S. market. We do not have broad trading arrangements. But in one area we have, as a country. It's the auto pact, and it has worked even during the tough years in auto sales, while there was difficulty for auto makers around the world and in North America particularly. Some of their companies had great difficulty. There was more stability with that pact than there would have been. There was less havoc and less disruption. I think we should support that, in all the factors where it is reasonable and fair and in our mutual interests across our country and across our province. It will benefit every province.

All countries that are successful go through constant industrial restructuring. That should not be feared. I was just in Japan. They go through constant industrial restructuring. It is not something to be feared. They know that they're not going to be the most competitive in any given product. They're planning ahead. As an economy, their business plans ahead. You see where they're going — as we can do much better as a country if we have that type of stability.

I think it's an important tool to add to the other areas in which Canada is moving. The disastrous policies of the past — of the federal government; things like FIRA, taxing B.C.'s gas, those sorts of things — have been removed. The new western energy agreement has got some positive effects. The drilling program in our northeast is continuing to grow — the number of rigs, wells and people employed. That's creating employment, expanding the economy and expanding our reserves of proven energy. It's important that that take place.

It's important that we continually prove up our reserves and continue to get value on a realistic basis. It is sound policy, now present in Canada and provincially, that is making that happen.

You asked whether the new fertilizer plant is a good project. You say it doesn't provide many jobs. It provides a lot of jobs in its implementation and construction. It provides a lot of jobs in the gasfields and in people in the industry working to get those volumes. It encourages that drilling, because it starts to move locked-in gas which is a disincentive to find more.

We've got programs that have revitalized our petroleum industry. They have revitalized those communities and revitalized employment. Those sorts of policies are positive for Canada. They are the things we should do as a country and support provincially. The things we have done are the reasons our economy is growing. Even though we faced a difficult time in the last two years, the growth rate is increasing. The number of employed people is increasing. The diversification of our economy is starting to happen. I'm confident that the incentives and the competitive tax base that we've now been able to achieve will continue to have us lead in those areas. I feel that our five-year economic strategy, for the first time involving municipal governments and making them part of the program, is a very positive economic strategy.

When he says this is a province in conflict, I say no. In 1984 there were fewer people involved in work stoppages than in the previous five years. I predict that this year we'll beat that.

MR. MICHAEL: In listening to the members of the opposition talk about jobs and economic development in the province of British Columbia, I wonder sometimes if I am living in the same world and reading the same papers, or reading the same facts from research and information readily available to both sides of the House. It would appear that they don't want to talk about the number of jobs created in the month of May alone, but I also wonder why they don't go back 12 months and check job creation in the province of British Columbia and other provinces in the Dominion of Canada for the last 12 months. The facts about the labour force are there in the records for the reading. Just check Statistics Canada. In the province of British Columbia there were 47,000 more people working at the end of May 1985 than there were at the end of May 1984. If that statistic — and record — doesn't influence the members of the opposition, then perhaps they should look at what has happened in other provinces. If you add the combined totals of new jobs in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from those same sources, you will find the number of new jobs in those six provinces is only 45,000. We in British Columbia have 47,000 more jobs — more jobs than all those six provinces combined.

It's very interesting, looking at the statistics, to see that the lowest province in all of the Dominion of Canada, the one that did the poorest job in new job creation — it's not very far from the middle of Canada — is the province of Manitoba. In 12 months they were only able to create 1,000 more new jobs. Mr. Chairman, in looking at only one figure, and that having to do with provincial migration, if you go back five years you will find that Manitoba had a net outflow of people in excess of an average of 3,000 a year. We in British Columbia had a net inflow in excess of 15,000 a year.

[ Page 6744 ]

1 listened to the leader of the United Party speaking about vested interest groups. I certainly agree that members of the New Democratic Party are indeed controlled by vested interest groups. However, looking at my party, I know where the control is and where the money comes from for my campaigns. I can tell this House that I will compare the membership of the Social Credit Party in the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke with any constituency in the southern part of British Columbia. Person for person, Mr. Chairman, I would wager that in Shuswap-Revelstoke we have twice as many members in the Social Credit Party as in any constituency represented by the New Democratic Party in the southeast section of the province. If that doesn't prove rank-and-file control — where the funds come from to run our campaigns and who we're responsible to — I don't know any clearer example than that.

One of the members opposite also spoke about a program. We have no economic program, they say. Well, I don't know, in listening to that member, where he gets his thoughts from. The program that I am pleased to have been a part of — and it's what we promised the people in the last election — is that we would set about to cut the cost of government. We have effectively done that. We have trimmed thousands and thousands of people from the payroll in British Columbia. Along with that....

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: The Leader of the Opposition has just interjected and said that we put them on welfare. I reiterate: if you take all of the people who've been cut from the provincial payroll, the pluses and the minuses, there are still 47,000 more people working today than there were 12 months ago.

Another thing we promised the people of British Columbia is that we would encourage the private sector. In this particular session, if there's one example that stands out among all else, it's the bills and the initiatives and the budget that have indeed carried out that fulfilment. We have passed more bills and done more things in these last few months to encourage the private sector than I would ever have dreamed of when I entered politics. Indeed, things are happening.

Along with that, it has been the policy of this government to develop major resource centres. This has been done, and it continues to be done. We have pledged and have done an excellent job in the development of a first-class infrastructure system throughout the entire province. We have first-rate highways, first-rate railway systems, good communication, excellent waterways communication systems, first-class port facilities and an abundance of low-cost energy. That, Mr. Chairman, is the way you encourage the private sector to get in and do the job.

Another very important element, and one that the opposition of this House could never fulfil, is what our Premier is doing in getting out into the international marketplace to develop the confidence and the trust that's necessary to bring those foreign dollars into British Columbia. I look at the releases over the last few months of new industries, the new things that are happening in the province, and I wonder, when they talk about the lack of economic development and new industries in the province, if the members of the opposition have been reading the newspapers. If I had the time, it would take me the balance of this session, the balance of this day, to talk about all of the new industries, major and minor, throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia. How about the $17 million plant for Kamloops? Armco Canada will build a $17 million steel ball manufacturing plant in Kamloops, creating 65 direct and 130 indirect jobs. That's progress. How about the Ocelot plant in Kitimat? The construction of an $80 million B.C. ammonia plant by Ocelot Industries Ltd. of Calgary will begin almost immediately. Jobs and investment.

I look at the record as reported by the Vancouver Sun on energy drilling in the province. The number of oil and gas wells drilled in British Columbia last year surged 155 percent over 1983. That is progress. That's action. That's development in our province. How about the Annacis Island fertilizer plant? A three-company consortium will build a $600 million nitrogen fertilizer plant at Annacis Island — not only that massive development, but the enormous amount of development that's going to take place in the north country to supply that plant with its much needed resources of natural gas. Tremendous activity is going to take place in the north country as a result of that, and I fully expect the Premier and this government — hopefully much to the disdain of the opposition — to be successful in their participation in the announcement of the future LNG plant for Prince Rupert.

Another thing. I read a headline that two major Italian banks opened offices in British Columbia, another signal of the international community's faith in investing in British Columbia.

Perhaps they'd like to talk about coal for a while. We haven't heard from the member for East Hole-in-the-Ground in this particular debate, but I am sure he will enter the debate in a very short period of time. The most recently announced figures I have on coal production in British Columbia show that between 1983 and 1984 the volumes increased to 20.7 million tonnes, a 78 percent increase. I call that progress; I call that economic activity in the province of British Columbia.

[5:15]

Let's talk about the trade relations with the Japanese on coking-coal sales. Canadian coking exports to Japan were up 62 percent in the first half of the Japanese fiscal year, which began last April, Ministry of Finance figures show. Economic activity — lots of action. How about this: Gulf Canada Resources has signed a deal to ship 20,000 tonnes of anthracite coal to Europe on a trial basis. That is just a trial basis. I'm sure we can expect to see a lot more activity in that regard.

We used to hear quite a few questions during question period from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) about Quintette Coal. Not too much news from him in the last little while. Perhaps it has something to do with the recent announcement that if Quintette's April production is sustained for the rest of the year the mine will produce 5.1 million tonnes of coal, ahead of the targeted 4.4 million tonnes set for all of 1985. Success, positive reports.

How about the recent announcement by our minister regarding the French firm that's going to set up a gold-mine in British Columbia? The firm is called Serem Inc. The company proposes a $27 million gold-and-silver mine-and-mill complex on the property, which would employ 130 full-time workers, the provincial Mines minister said in a news release. How about the release here in the last day: "Richmond Firm Lands Space Deal." The first paragraph reads: "A Richmond company has won a contract for work on the $12 billion U.S. space station, to be launched in 1992."

[ Page 6745 ]

People are coming to British Columbia — jobs, investment. How about the recent headline: "Pipeline to Boost Capacity." Trans Mountain Pipe Line Co. Ltd. plans to spend $15 million increasing the capacity of its oil pipeline which runs from Alberta to Vancouver. More good news items. How about the article in the paper in the last two days about the Molson brewery, which is going to increase production, starting to service many of the states in the western sections of the United States. It will add 20 jobs immediately to the 260 already in the brewery. Good news, but I listen to the members of the opposition and I wonder where they've been. I wonder if they're not reading the newspapers.

How about the release on June 13: "Partnership Program Key to New Squamish Hydrogen Peroxide Plant." Good stuff. FMC of Canada decided to site their new $30 million to $40 million hydrogen peroxide operation in Squamish. It will employ 26 to 30 full-time employees and result in an annual payroll in excess of $1.5 million. The opposition talks about nothing happening in British Columbia. They must not be reading the newspapers. How about this one? Three hundred fifty new jobs proposed for a $235 million paper mill. Makin Pulp and Paper Ltd. plans to establish a $235 million paper mill at Britannia Beach, north of Vancouver. Good news, and further to that, the company said the mill will create 350 direct jobs in the processing operations.

We haven't heard many criticisms lately about B.C. Place. I wonder why — because it's good news. Headlines in the recent paper: "$10,000 Daily Profit, B.C. Place Stadium." Lots of good news is going to come out of that next year-end report, but not too many enthusiastic members of the opposition, because they don't like good news,

How about the hydroelectric sales to the United States? This is an article on June 19. "However," it reads, "even with the internal problems, Hydro sold a record $182 million in export power last year." Good stuff.

I think this province is fortunate in having a Premier, a leader, who has the vision, the confidence and the leadership to attract that much-needed capital and investment, not only from other provinces in Canada, not only from the United States, but from investors throughout the world.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If I could just follow up, one area the member touched on also touched on items I introduced on the recent trip to Korea and Japan — the industrial mission. That was the anthracite contract from the Klappan coal area, the trial shipment to Europe. While we were in Korea we held.... The president of Gulf was there looking for anthracite sales, as well as others, as part of the mission. I believe that they have arranged out of that trip an 80,000 tonne trial shipment into that area. You've got to understand that Korea — probably one of the largest anthracite markets in the world — uses it for home heating. It's used for a number of other uses. It's the higher-value coal; it's not industrial coal, metallurgical coal or the lower-priced steaming coal. Anthracite has tremendous value and its ability to get into the type of production that they're gearing for, which would move it up in the initial stages, I think, to two or three million tonnes a year would be a substantial boost for the northwestern part of British Columbia. That's the type of thing that this mission accomplished.

We were able to get access not only to government, where their strategy on energy is important to the products that the private sector buys, but where they're going to make their projections.... We were able to discuss their projections of the type of energy they're going to use, whether it's home heating, electrical or nuclear. Because they do use that; I think they have some capability there, where it is produced in other ways. That means that that type of contact we made there is going to mean quite a number of British Columbians working, preparing those trial shipments. We also will be able to get into the type of acceleration on the mine, so that full production developments can take place.

Earlier, as well, members were mentioning.... I think it was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who was talking about greater value from forestry — or maybe it was the Leader of the Opposition. You've got to know, in conjunction with the private sector, as well as on a regular basis...on the trip itself...or members from the forest industry.... Also arranging to be there in Korea and Japan at the same time were many smaller companies who were able to assist in the development of some of their products.

One of the interesting market developments — although members will smile — is the use of our poplar and alder. We have one reasonably very strong proposal there that may create as many as 75 jobs. I understand there are five proposals in the province now for facilities of this nature: making chopsticks for the Korean and Japanese market. We had very optimistic reports on the discussion that was taking place on the letter of intent and the discussions that would take place with one mill from B.C. that has already ordered on the basis of this.... It has ordered the equipment, I understand, and has the contract. That facility alone would make not only chopsticks — and they come as what you call "semi-finished" — but candy sticks and things like that, from what is primarily a weed in British Columbia. The type of commercial use for poplar and alder has not yet been developed to the extent that this fast-growing supply of wood has been utilized.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, it may turn out to be higher value. If you take those 75 people making chopsticks in just one of these, it is almost the same complement that work in a pulp mill or in some of the highly mechanized paper mills and others. You've got to know that industry itself.... I talked over the plans, not only a number of months ago but recently, on the re-saw and the new finished sizes that are being undertaken with associated companies, or private companies, working with MacMillan Bloedel. Those sorts of things are already taking place. Private industry, for its own development, is playing a large role in that type of product. Identified for additional higher-value use in the forest industry are approximately 58 different items. Not all of them are commercially practical, but some of them are already being done, such as the special drying and new dimensional size being done off-premises for some of the larger forest facilities who can't accommodate that type of work in their mills. I would hate the impression to be left in here that that isn't happening.

There is a major rationalization in the industry. The industry says that the type of encouragement they got is that the tax reductions that the government has made that were hurting them now allow them to undertake some of the expansion and some of the things they're able to do with dollars left. They are more competitive because those front end costs are gone. Therefore that has been an incentive. They've also been encouraged to increase their plant capacity

[ Page 6746 ]

because of the incentive program, the partnership agreement. I'm going to take Trail as an example. The partnership agreement there removes some of the financial roadblocks to the expansion of Cominco. I'm not just talking expansion, because last year, with what's happened in the lead and zinc market and given the problems, the whole of the Cominco organization did not have as bright a future. Their talk was of phasing out. It is a difficult market in good markets; it's very difficult now.

They have one asset, which is their power base. But the problem is that they need modernization, and their existing base was threatened, let alone the expansion plans. They made briefs to the Finance minister's (Hon. Mr. Curtis's) hearings which took place in 1984 in the fall that supplemented the work done by staff on re-examining tax rates starting in 1983, in which they talked about certain financial things. The cuts in a general way meet all of their financial concerns about the type of dollars needed to encourage that major expansion, given that the support they have asked for from the federal government can be forthcoming.

That would provide more jobs, but really greater security, in Trail. But not just Trail; it's the Cominco complex that affects that whole Kootenay region. That's the type of thing that the budget and the industrial proposals have been able to do — not only to save jobs but to provide new jobs, particularly where you have the type of community, unique as the Kootenays and Trail are, that is so dependent on the continuation of Cominco, let alone its expansion.

Those types of things, of course, were all part of the type of trade mission we had, because representation from Cominco was on the trip. We're getting access to some of the buyers, some additional companies. Primarily what helps in those missions to encourage expansion and jobs here and additional markets is the additional understanding of governmental goals — better access that I can get for members to government ministries and the access into the business community that a mission like that can bring. Therefore it's very important that all of these aspects be included.

So I want to say that those initiatives were already working. The chopstick-manufacturing facilities are affordable now because of the machinery tax on new capacity coming in being removed. It makes it affordable now. It removes a front-end yearly cost.

They're not going to have to pay capital tax, that terrible tax that's being removed over.... Well, it's off for many right now. Practically all small business will be completely removed within three years. That's the sort of thing that allows them to consider those things now. So I didn't want you to get the impression, Mr. Chairman, from remarks from some of the others, that there weren't additional uses or things happening in our wood industry that weren't being corrected, or that the government did not have a policy.

[5:30]

One of the brightest opportunities, as I have said earlier, for greater access to the Japanese market for our platform frame construction is not through the removal of tariffs, although we continually push for the removal of the tariff on the SPE. But it's the fact that by regulation they limit the use of 2-by-4 frame; you're not allowed to build three-storey frame. Yet in Japan, the largest market for housing is not in single family dwellings, which we are getting our share of; it's in areas that need reconstruction of high-density, in which, if we get that regulation moved........ It would take far more lumber to expand our market and our mills into that area that almost accessing additional markets. While I was there I met with the construction minister — that was after my meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, Nakasone — and for the first time in all our representations we got a more positive response on changing the regulations on access to three-storey 2-by-4 frame construction.

So those are the sorts of areas in which we are trying to get our value-added wood into the market. It's broadening the market. We built five demonstration 2-by-4 frame homes in Korea because they just don't build to our standard, trying to develop it the same way as we did the Japanese market, by introducing 2-by-4 frame construction. Those five homes have sold, and of course we have been dealing with the large builders to try to get them to introduce some tracts in which we can get larger scale, in order to train workers on the job and to start to promote that use.

So I would say that there again is another additional access for our forest industry. Those sorts of missions provide all of these areas of support and greater hope for our workers.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's certainly interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear some of these comments from the travelling Premier. But I found myself, while intrigued and listening and willing to go along with some of the points made in the last little while, having to ask one fundamental question. This man has had ten long years at the helm here in British Columbia, and what is the end result of ten years' tenure at the hands of this man? Not very good at all.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The end result, as the leader has said, is 233,000 people on welfare and another 200,000 on unemployment. We have over 400,000 people idle in this province — the result of your policies. You've had a decade of your policies — a decade to move us into the debtor nation status of the Third World, to move us from $4 billion to $17 billion in debt. That's Third World leadership that we have had from this Premier — moving us into the basement with the Maritimes in terms of our economy and then getting us in debt to the extent that he has.

When he spoke in February he talked about the new alliance with the federal government. That was part of this whole new package of bringing prosperity back to British Columbia. Yet he was responsible for the previous decade. What was he going to get from the feds? He was going to stand tough. He wasn't going to take their money; he was going to get more money. "That'll teach them. I won't touch that money." But what happened? A little bit of illusory number crunching and they came up with a number that they said came close. But it didn't come close. It didn't come close to Quebec or eastern Canada in terms of money we got for forestry at all. In the mining sector, we looked ludicrous. People in the Maritimes are doing better in that sector. And you were also going to cut a deal with them on special economic zones. That's what's going to change the economic world in British Columbia. But who's ahead of you in the lineup with the feds, with dear Brian? Why, Cape Breton Island is ahead of you in the lineup with the federal government. They're getting a special economic zone, not you. That's who's ahead in the lineup. So much for the federal initiative.

The Premier talks about all that has happened under his partnership for renewal. They spent $560,000 on television

[ Page 6747 ]

advertising to try to make that one fly. It didn't fly. I suspect that's part of the reason the Premier left British Columbia to go abroad. That particular initiative wasn't moving along to any great extent.

In terms of new jobs, what about these programs? What about the cost for new jobs? Is anybody in your shop looking at the cost per new job? The kinds of jobs you're creating we can't afford. Northeast coal is $1 million a shot in terms of new jobs. We can't afford jobs that cost that much. Ocelot costs even more — 10 to 15 permanent jobs and we're forgoing taxes, we're forgoing the property tax, we're forgoing sales tax and we're forgoing full economic rent from gas probably to the tune of a quarter or whatever. And on it goes

How much are you willing to throw into the pot? That's the question, because that's what the exercise has been this last while — throwing more and more provincial money into the pot to get fewer and fewer jobs. That's what the exercise has been all about.

What about the rate of return on your so-called commercial investments? Every businessman has to look at commercial investments and see what the rate of return is. What's your rate of return on Revelstoke Dam, Mr. Premier? Water is spilling over the dam. We're not selling that electricity.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it is so. Your ministers couldn't cut a deal. You were cut out by Bonneville. And the member for Shuswap takes some selective information and talks about: "Oh well, there's this side to it." He didn't recognize the down side, which was at the beginning of the article. That was fairly clear from the statement he used.

You know, the Premier says that the problem is the international recession. Well, that's certainly an element, but the kind of mismanagement that has gone on in British Columbia, in terms of your major projects, in terms of the lack of a rate of return on those projects.... The businessmen that expected at least something out of Expo in terms of new products that they might produce and sell there have been frozen out. That's a project that is costing us close to $1 billion. The business community had anticipated some spinoff there for themselves. Instead some clever Yankee traders have walked off with the contract. That mess is here for you to deal with now, now that you're back home. That is on your desk waiting, because it hasn't been satisfactorily dealt with by the people you've put in charge. There hasn't been the spinoff from that project that there could and should have been.

Now it's already a project that Mr. Pattison says we're going to lose $311 million on. We haven't had an update on that. If we considered the Preview Centre as one comparison to look at, the original estimate of a few months ago was $17 million for the Preview Centre. The current cost is $27 million, and it leaks and won't be open in the wintertime. That's part of the end result of that whole exercise.

I'm intrigued by the Premier's talking about access of forest products in other markets. That's important to us. That's one of the most important issues in British Columbia. But when he talks about 2-by-4s as value added, selling that to the Orient.... They must be laughing as soon as they close the door if the Premier of British Columbia thinks that 2-by-4s are a value-added product to send abroad. It's not so. It's our fundamental problem that we aren't putting the value-added in.

One of the weaknesses in your whole so-called industrial program is that it hasn't been targeted in a knowledgeable way. We have fallen seriously behind in the forest industry. We are not turning out the value-added products that we should. We have not equalled the Scandinavians or the Americans. Is that any wonder when we have a Premier who thinks a 2-by-4 is value added? Is that any wonder when we have a Premier who has advisers who don't have a clue about the forest industry of this province? His inner circle in his offices are not people who understand the basic industry of this province, people who have worked in the bush and understand what sawmills are about. That's why we end up having all of these glitzy projects chased around the world by the Premier and his cohorts: he has surrounded himself by people — his immediate advisers — who don't understand the roots of British Columbia. The roots of British Columbia are in the forest industry.

The Premier's immediate advisers say that this is a sunset industry. That's what they tell him, and that's what he has believed for some period of time now. Well, the irony of all that is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe that it's a sunset industry, then that indeed is what it will become. It need not be so, but it means that you have to change your advisers; it means that you have to look more here at home, indeed, in terms of rebuilding this basic industry. It's what the Scandinavians did decades ago. They saw the same problems that we have. You have not seen them, and your advisers have not seen them, because they're not glamorous politically.

When it was the special economic zone number and working with the feds last summer, you were going to go into pharmaceuticals, you were going to go into automobile parts and you were going to go into electronics. How naive is all this, anyway? That isn't the way you build wealth. You don't leap spectacularly into something new, out of the blue. You incrementally build on what you do best, and that's what we can and should be doing in British Columbia, and have not. You have ignored the important stuff right under your feet. You've ignored the basic assets of the people and the resources of this province. You've gone for those glitzy projects.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about the session in Hannover in Germany where 75,000 people came to see machinery that is used in wood products — 75,000 people came. Did we have any machinery? We don't have a secondary industry that turns out the machines that will create the value added in the woods industry. We're not in the game, and yet we're one of the most important, if not the most important, woods producer in the world. That's the area of weakness; that's what requires focus here at home.

That doesn't mean a Minister of International Trade who trails around the world, and leaves his library here in Victoria and his head office in Vancouver and uses his junk mail as his research advice. That isn't what the international world is all about, and that's what happens. I think that's the irony. We've now got to the point where an earlier premier in the sixties and early seventies would have been shocked. We have got to the point where we are buying our groceries in this province on Chargex, because we're borrowing to pay people on welfare. That's your system, and that is a monstrous failure. The reason we're doing that is that most of your commercial projects are not viable. You're not getting a return from them. You're not getting a return from Expo. You're not getting a return from northeast coal. That's why everything else is

[ Page 6748 ]

squeezed. That's why you're buying groceries on Chargex. That's the current regime's game.

I heard you say just a few minutes ago that you think there's a problem of scale; that we have to have these outsiders. To a degree, yes. We can and should work with outsiders, but we should think about it and be selective. You think there are problems of scale. Those are traditional arguments that I suspect aren't the real ones. To think that there isn't the capability in British Columbia in terms of incrementally building new products and the rest, and to say that we really need experts from outside to do it for us, is a kind of failure of imagination and skills here at home. You know, I have this terrible feeling that what we have here at the hands of this Premier is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Under his 10 years, the long decade under this Premier, they have treated the forest industry as a sunset industry, and it is weaker as a result because they didn't see the opportunities that were right there under their feet.

[5:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

You said just a few minutes ago that Canada isn't large enough for a lot of these things. You didn't say which; you didn't say what. You didn't talk in a specific kind of way. That's part of the problem. It's a kind of foggy thinking that we can't do a range of things. I don't believe that for a minute and I don't think the people of British Columbia believe that for a minute. We have the resources here in British Columbia, we have the savings, the pension funds, and if we had a government that understood it all, we might just get on with the job — that is, in terms of harnessing the 400,000 people who aren't working in British Columbia; harnessing their savings, harnessing union pension funds and the like, and rebuilding here. It doesn't require flying around the world, especially when you haven't done your homework. Especially when you think 2-by-4s are a value-added product; especially when if you check the construction projects here you'll find they're not even using 2-by-4s in construction projects here in Victoria and Vancouver and elsewhere. There's homework to be done. The homework is to be done here at home. It hasn't been done. That's what we're waiting for. But you've had a decade, and the level of productivity has been very low indeed, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, how quickly people get out of touch when they spend a few years out of politics, knowing when you talk about 2-by-4 or platform frame construction it involves a lot of different types of things, including door sash, window sash, 2-by-10 and, in dimensions when we're cutting for Japan, you wouldn't say 2-by-4....

MR. WILLIAMS: That's not 2-by-4s.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Platform frame construction and 2-by-4 frame construction are the terms used, but you've been away a long time and I don't expect you to know them. I expect you to try to twist it, either unknowingly because you've been away a long time, or twist it intentionally. You can take your choice.

But I've got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I reject that member's argument about value of job. He forgets earnings of value into the economy. If he's going to talk about the cost per job per investment, then obviously he's against the Cominco project — most costly. Then I'll have to go and tell the people of Trail that he doesn't believe those jobs should take place, and that investment. He may think 15 people are insignificant in Ocelot. I'll have to tell the people up there working in Ocelot that he doesn't think that that project and their jobs should be there. He talks about investment in the coal industry as being too costly, and therefore I'll have to tell them he doesn't think their jobs should be there. I'll have to tell them, because that's exactly what he said.

I have seen this province grow and change, and it has some benefits. It has resources. We've learned a lesson....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the best you can do in response?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't have to do any better to handle you or any of your cohorts. If you could elect someone better, I'll rise to the occasion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would all comments be directed through the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response, I would say that we have to continue to look for traditional markets as well as expanding new ones — new products. When you talk about value added, the member says one thing, but you don't do it overnight. What about those who produce the products we can sell now? We continue to need those facilities and run those facilities that have been financed. The workers have those skills, and they are products that we can compete on.

Our forest companies have worked in a number of areas, because that's the private sector. But the member for Vancouver East can't get out of his head that all of the answers are to be found in government, that government is the answer — it directs and tells industry what to build.

Some time ago in this Legislature, he was suggesting that government should tell those who put up their capital to develop mines where to dig the hole, and that if that was a mistake, and some engineer in government told them to drill the hole in the wrong place, he would have the taxpayers in the province liable for information on which investment was based. That's the type of convoluted, silly.... In the words of his leader, whenever things get difficult, they become silly. That's the type of argument he uses for the type of direction that should be undertaken.

Mr. Chairman, I've got to tell you that despite the criticism and despite the lack of constructive suggestions, this government's policies are working. Despite their denying the solution, we attempted to face the international recession. We now have the economic tools to give to the private sector so that they can get on the job and not have government tell them how to do the job. Government put the tools in their hands and made it affordable to do business in British Columbia, more affordable to do business here than in Manitoba.

Our people continue to respond to a changing market, Mr. Chairman. This government has provided the right type of leadership. It has been balanced. It has faced the reality of the recession. It has responded. We are now able to provide the economic tools through the budget and through our incentives. We have now introduced the municipal partnership that has local government and the provincial government working hand in hand. The member for Vancouver East thinks that

[ Page 6749 ]

somehow it's a failure of the government that allocation of federal funds into key areas did not meet our original targets. They were not even going to be that high until we got the support of our federal MPs, who fought for their allocation where these decisions are made — within the caucus of the federal government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You may attack our federal MPs, but I think they did a heck of a job. They got extra money. They had no help from the NDP federal members, who got in the way, who wanted them to fail. I'd say it's twice as high as we've ever had before. Those federal members have done their job, and the people are looking at those federal NDP members who are making their job more difficult in trying to get solutions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver East is against Cape Breton. I'll have to go to Cape Breton and tell them. The NDP don't like you in Cape Breton,

Mr. Chairman, these policies have been welcomed by those who make investment decisions. When we talk about external investment, we talk about investment that brings with it the markets to develop facilities here in which we have then a market for the product.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are the markets not there for the products?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The markets may not be there for us unless they participate, and they may not be guaranteed to remain there on a consistent basis if they do not participate. One of the best things that I can see....

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean it is not a free market?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, you have a free market in which the buyer and the seller can make their decision on any given day; but when you have an investment in a plant, you want to make sure that you do business where you have a partial investment. It makes sense. One of the leading business articles said that one of the things the Japanese industry and others are looking at is that they have less flexibility to go to additional markets to play that game when they also are locked into investment in the same facility. It provides that economic stability for a project, for a mill, for the workers to lock in the buyer on both sides. They can have the type of partnership in investment.... They don't have to own the whole thing. I'm talking about a partnership of international and local investment. I'm talking about markets that remain guaranteed. The member for Vancouver East is totally out of touch since he last sat in this Legislature. He was very, very difficult when he was here; he's gotten worse since he's had that long absence which he found....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get personal.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, but I know that he....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Come back tomorrow, and you can rethink it all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, the member from Victoria, who has been absent most of today and missed some of the stimulating suggestions from his leader to do with Manitoba being the model for your policies and Australia being the model for the policies that you will bring out.... We now will have to review on a regular basis what's happening in Manitoba and Australia, and look at how those economies are working, because you won't tell us what your policies are so we'll have to look for clues within those models you have raised today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Our policies I quite willingly take out there to the people anytime, compared with the absence of policies of the NDP

The member for Vancouver East talks about how we've had ten years. Yes, and the next ten years are going to be even better, and I'm looking forward to each and every one of them as we continue our debates, you on that side and we on this side.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.