[ Page 7473 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Financial disclosure. Mr. Macdonald –– 7473

Log Exports. Mr. Passarell –– 7473

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7473

Government advertising. Mr. Hanson –– 7474

Silviculture funding. Mrs. Wallace –– 7474

Liability insurance. Mr. Cocke –– 7475

Tabling Documents –– 7475

Budget Debate

Mr. Parks –– 7475

Mr. MacWilliam –– 7477

Mr. Michael –– 7481

Ms. Sanford –– 7484

Mr. Passarell –– 7486

Mr. Cocke –– 7487

Mr. Williams –– 7488

Mr. Strachan –– 7490

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7493

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7496

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I hope most of the members were in the buildings at noon today when the concert choir from the Columbia Christian College in Portland, Oregon, were sharing their gift of music with us. Within that group that is led by Mr. Richard Dalzell, the director of choral music, are two British Columbians: Carol Mullaly from Nanaimo and Ann Tomlinson from Salmon Arm.

I would also like to welcome Colin Geiger from Griffin, Saskatchewan, another Canadian. But would all members welcome all members of that beautiful choir that came to share their talent with us today and wish them a happy trip as they travel from here to Alberta.

MR. REE: In the gallery today I have two dear old friends — I shouldn't say "old," because they are very young at heart, but they are old-time friends of mine — I'd like this House to welcome. Both of them have been over for an amputee bonspiel in Victoria over the weekend, so would the House please welcome Al and Torch Russell.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would join me on behalf of the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) in welcoming the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) back to the House.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that her absence caused him such anguish that he raised it on the floor of the House on Friday, and I wanted to assure him that she's much better and at any moment will be operating at full bore again.

Oral Questions

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General appointed Mr. Leonard Doust, QC, to investigate the affairs of the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Rogers) under the disclosure act. Can the Attorney-General advise when or if such a report will be received by him?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I can. It would be expected some time this week, hopefully, but I can't give any assurance.

I know that the member opposite is an admirer of Mr. Leonard Doust, because I read his remarks in the throne debate, and I also remember that he hired him a number of times when he was Attorney-General, so he must have thought that he was a very objective, well-thought-of lawyer.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I got a little more than I asked for there, but I can't Did he get $200,000 a year when we were government? Did I appoint him to be an independent arbiter of one of my colleagues? If I did I ought to resign, but I have resigned — I'm out and I can't.

All I'm asking....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am envious of the hon. lawyer.

Would the Attorney-General perhaps consider giving him another assignment to look at the disclosure form of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who declared that his assets were in a blind trust with Mair Janowsky Blair, which is obviously a breach of the act? Will the Attorney-General appoint him for that purpose and have a second report?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I'll take that question under advisement.

MR. MACDONALD: There's one short supplementary: will the reports — one or two — of Mr. Doust be made public, so the public can read them?

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly the substance of the recommendation will. As the member knows, you do not make public reports on police investigations; you never do. When you're sitting opposite it's always a tempting sort of sunshine thing to say that all these things should be made public, but you don't make public reports dealing with justice matters. But the substance of Mr. Doust's recommendations most certainly will be public.

LOG EXPORTS

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the Minister of Forests. This past weekend it was reported that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) stated that 50 percent of all logs cut in British Columbia were exported. My constituents were very concerned about it this weekend. Are these figures correct?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In response to the member for Atlin's concern, I think his constituents ought to be concerned, as well as everybody else in British Columbia. If the opposition will give me an opportunity, perhaps we could shed some light on the questions from the member for Vancouver East.

My understanding is that roughly 4 percent of the provincial annual cut in cubic metres has been exported, and most of this has been handled through the surplus criteria on the Vancouver log market. With respect to the coastal cut, I believe something in the order of 27 million cubic metres was harvested during 1985, and something in the order of 2.6 million cubic metres was exported, or somewhere in the order of about 9 percent.

[2:15]

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: In the absence of the Minister of Tourism, I shall ask his alternate regarding Expo's specialized periods where the nuts and bolts of world transportation and communication technology were supposed to be aired. Apparently this is now being brushed aside. Expo officials have shelved the promotional events which were promised to the international exhibitors. Has the minister decided to review this decision and properly fund this program, which, to remind all members, was sold to the nations as the prime reason for those international participants in the fair?

[ Page 7474 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), I'm going to take that question as notice.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Supplementary.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: New question. People keep handing me papers.

Ted Allan said the participating nations feel that the rug has literally been pulled out from under them, and that the decision will seriously harm the fair's potential to develop international trade markets. Does the minister not recognize that failing to honour such international commitments could damage British Columbia's reputation as an international trading partner?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Much as I'd be delighted to answer that question — and am even tempted, Mr. Speaker — I'm going to take that question as notice for the Minister of Tourism.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. Would the minister confirm that the political advertising campaign being carried out around the budget is paid for by tax dollars?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know of any political advertising being carried out by the province.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Informational.

MR. HANSON: So the answer to the first question is yes the taxpayers are paying. The taxpayers and the working people of this province are paying the bills and would like to know exactly how much this campaign is costing them. They're very concerned to know the answer on costs, because they know these ads are not true. Would you give us the costs, please.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, would the minister provide this House with the costs of the saturation advertising campaign surrounding the budget that is bombarding the airwaves in this province? What is the cost? This House has a right to know.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is surrounding any informational advertising that the Ministry of Finance may have regarding where information for the budget tabled last week could be obtained. I would be very pleased to get that answer for the member.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary. This minister has the responsibility for administering the Government Information Services of this province. Is the cost of the campaign coming out of one of the funds within her ministry?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Government Information Services comes under my jurisdiction as Provincial Secretary and minister responsible for government services.

MR. HANSON: One final supplementary. What particular account within the GIS budget...? What is the cost and what is the account that the program, the political saturation campaign, is being paid for under?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have already in an earlier question undertaken to bring that answer back for the member.

SILVICULTURE FUNDING

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. The silviculture initiative proposed in the budget is temporary in nature, and it's dependent upon outside funding as well. It's totally inadequate for the task at hand. Will the Minister of Forests advise why he is unable to present a permanent and properly financed initiative for the care and management of our forests?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the bill which was introduced last Thursday, Bill 7, Forest Stand Management Fund Act, is now before the House. I thought that a question asked with respect to that particular piece of legislation would be out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The point made is a valid one, hon. member, although on occasions we have allowed some flexibility in question period. The member continues.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, let's try this one. Why is the minister not providing in his budget sufficient funds to ensure that our silviculture program is a long and continuing one, to provide meaningful jobs for people in the forest industry?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, if the member would care to look at the budget, you'll notice that the lift in the Ministry of Forests budget was something in the order of 21 percent. You'll also note that incidental to that particular budget amount is an amount under the new legislation which the Minister of Finance announced last Thursday, $20 million, being the start of a particular fund which is to remain untouchable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, anybody else who is prepared to make a contribution to that fund.... And there are others. We touch that fund at our peril. That fund will remain inviolate, and it's going to be for intensive silviculture, for stand-tending in some of the areas where I see these members are elected from. We've got lots of places for it. I'll tell you, it'll remain untouchable.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if I could ask the minister if this fund that he is setting up is as untouchable as the one that was set up by his predecessor.

[ Page 7475 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The fund which has been set up makes reference not only to a government contribution but also to contributions from industry, municipalities, those involved in the forest sector, the trade unions and others. It seems to me that with the funds which were advanced by those people, whether by levy or contribution or voluntarily, no government would ever turn around and take the funds from others set up for a particular intensive silviculture fund, Madam Member, and pull it out. And anybody who touches that does so at their own peril for breaking the faith with the people who have been asked to contribute.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, this is the government that tried to do it with the fund that is paid for by the hunting and fishing community. They tried to recoup the Farmer's Fund, and now they tell us to believe they won't recoup this one. Is that minister going to do to forestry what he did to education in this province?

LIABILITY INSURANCE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was so waiting for that answer that I was just a little slow in getting up. I apologize.

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There's a crisis in our province regarding the increased cost of liability insurance. Individuals, small businesses, municipalities, professionals and groups are under severe financial stress. Can the minister explain the complete failure of his ministry to take any action whatsoever in this matter?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As a matter of fact, about two or three weeks ago we spent three days with Barbara McDougall and ministers from across Canada dealing with that very problem. The problem of liability insurance is not peculiar to British Columbia. It's a problem throughout North America. It was brought about in large measure by the problem in Bhopal, India, and it is one of the items that we are dealing with. I hope to be back to the House shortly with some help in this particular area.

I might tell you that as far as liability insurance is concerned British Columbia is in a lot better position than some other provinces in Canada. As a matter of fact, the market is starting to open up. We are keeping a watch on it on a daily basis, and the ministry is actively working together with other members of the government to try to bring about solutions.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled, from the Superannuation Commission, annual reports for both the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (College) Act.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled a statement of unclaimed moneys to March 31, 1985, as required under section I of the Unclaimed Money Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to introduce a former constituent and an old friend who is in the gallery, Mrs. Beryl Young.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on the budget, Mr. Speaker.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. PARKS: As a member of the government side, it is my privilege to rise in the House this afternoon and speak in support of the 1986 budget. More than my privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly a pleasure to be able to rise and speak in support of a budget that addresses the issues before our province at this time and that puts forth solutions. I think the very quote on the inside cover of this budget sums it up extremely well, and it is as follows: "At a time when other governments in Canada are forced to retrench by cutting programs and increasing taxes, our vital programs are secure and our taxes are being reduced."

I don't know of anyone who understands the rudiments of taxation and fiscal planning who shouldn't be supporting that, yet time and again, in the few short days since that budget was introduced, we have seen members of the opposition speaking out against it. Probably the most illuminating comment that I have noticed in the media is one attributed to the Leader of the Opposition, where he notes that "the budget cuts corporate income tax, yet projects an increase in corporate income tax this year over last year of $90 million. There is absolutely no way the figures in this budget can be justified in terms of reality."

What that shows is that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand fiscal policy, does not understand basic economics. Of course this budget reduces income taxes and corporate taxes, for one simple reason: to encourage investment. It is investments that create jobs, and that's what this province is undoubtedly in need of jobs, many jobs. And it is investment by the private sector, not spending on public works, that is going to continue to produce jobs, get our economy turned around, diversify our industry and make this province once again the number one economic performer in Canada.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Last year's budget was a start of building for this economic renewal, There were a number of major tax reductions, and we have already begun to see the effects of those. We in effect have got our financial house in order, when the deficits of other governments are still galloping out of control. A year ago we launched a set of initiatives — major tax reliefs — worth almost a billion dollars over this year and the next two years. Why was that done? To relieve the burden on business, the engine of our economy, and it's beginning to work: tax incentives to stimulate new job-creating investment, industrial development programs to aid new and expanding business, investments in our resource base, and major construction projects to provide jobs now and in the future.

If we all can remember, in the months after budget 1985, this government added more: the provincial-municipal partnership program, electricity discounts, the critical industries process. Even the opposition, even the Leader of the Opposition, is on record congratulating the critical industries commissioner in his efforts to save at least 1,500 jobs in the short time that he has been in office. The public sector purchasing

[ Page 7476 ]

policy is another one of those initiatives we have brought to bear in this province; the equity investment plan, venture capital corporations. Quite frankly, there were many other building blocks for this economic revival. Budget 1986 builds on that solid foundation.

This budget makes a major new investment in people because we need skilled, educated and healthy British Columbians. Budget 1986 shows very clearly that we are doing the right thing, that we are moving in the right direction. British Columbia is heading for a new era of growth and prosperity. We are undoubtedly, in my opinion, doing the correct thing. Many say 1985 was a tough year. However, 1985 was in fact the best year for the provincial economy since 1981. Increased consumer spending and higher exports brought estimated real growth of about 3 percent. Although commodity prices were lower, volume was up, with the total value of commodity exports appearing to increase slightly. While some major commodities — wood pulp, natural gas and coal — experienced export price declines, others, like copper, lumber and newsprint, went up. Employment, that most significant concern to all thoughtful British Columbians, showed a steady upwards trend. Though moderate compared to the 1960s and 1970s, the growth of 26,000 jobs in our province last year was the most significant since 1981. Even more impressive was the last month of StatsCan statistics; job creation in February alone was 50,000 more than in the month the year previous. That clearly is good news, but I would suggest that it just bodes well for what's coming in the months ahead.

[2:30]

The benefits of this three-year tax reform program that we began last year will provide increasing economic stimulus this year. I think that's the main thrust of the budget: long-term planning, diversification of our industries and increased incentives to business. We can expect a growth rate in GNP for this province of about 4 percent this year, and with the employment incentives as they are, it should further increase by an average of about 40,000 to 45,000 jobs this year. If we keep in mind that in February we saw 50,000 new jobs, with this conservative projection of approximately 40,000 jobs for 1986, some of the programs that the opposition put forth as being realistic programs of ploughing in hundreds of millions of dollars to create a mere 150,000 new jobs over three years, then the basis for that short-term investment for short-term jobs — no long-term investment and no long-term jobs — has to be seriously questioned, Mr. Speaker. If in fact we are able to realize that figure of 40,000 jobs this year it is expected that unemployment in this province will continue to decline from the 14 percent range to well under 13 percent.

We must keep in mind that notwithstanding the structure that this budget establishes and encourages, there are clearly no shortcuts either by handouts or make-work projects. The only way to create real jobs is through investment. Those investments must take place in plants and equipment, and most importantly in people by offering them the skills and training they'll need in the new economy being built in British Columbia.

Although the opposition are renowned for putting forth illogical and unfounded statements, it's interesting that at this time when we're just embarking on the debate on the budget, there is but one member of the opposition in the House. One shouldn't speak to the converted, and one should thank that one member for attending, but I wonder how serious the opposition is, Mr. Speaker, when they don't choose to take part in the debate and attend in the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hear they've got a split in their caucus.

MR. PARKS: They have a number of splits in their caucus, hon. minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: When you talk about something reasonable, we'll listen.

MR. PARKS: My colleague, the only opposition member in the House, suggests that we're not discussing something serious. We're only discussing the economic future of this province; we're only talking about creating jobs for the multitude of unemployed youth in this province, And this is not serious, Mr. Speaker?

The structure of this budget is the type of budget that's going to create economic growth not just in 1986 but surely in the years to come. I'm sure the opposition member, the sole opposition member present, will just have to ask on behalf of his colleagues — and I'm sure some of them would ask if they were here — what are the reasons I'm prepared to stand up today and say there is going to be a significant increase in economic growth in this province.

There are a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker. Probably the most important one — in my opinion surely the most important one — is our government's actions over the past three years to strengthen the long-term competitiveness of our producers. However, there are other significant reasons, too. There has been growth in the economies of the United States, Japan and western Europe, and these increased economic situations will increase the demand for our products — for Canadian products. The decline in the Canadian dollar will surely help our international exports remain competitive. Key indicators — those in retail sales, housing starts and manufacturing shipments — show established upward trends.

For those of us who are very proud of Expo from the point of view of showing British Columbia, there is a very important economic reason to be proud of Expo 86. With its millions, and not just the 13.75 that we're now almost guaranteed of having attend our world exposition, but probably with the 15, 16 or maybe even 17 millions of visitors attending in British Columbia.... They will provide a major economic stimulus and firmly establish British Columbia as a prime tourism and investment location.

We have the opportunity of bringing all those people not just to the lower mainland of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, because I understand studies indicate that if someone is going to come to Expo for a two-week vacation they're probably only going to spend three or four days on the Expo site, and the balance of their stay in the Pacific northwest will be either going to or from their destinations, in all likelihood spending something like seven to ten days throughout the balance of British Columbia. That's the opportunity British Columbians are going to have this summer. They're going to have the opportunity of selling British Columbia. They're going to have the opportunity of displaying the natural beauty, and they're going to have the opportunity of showing that they are in fact super hosts. And when those visitors return home they may not come back next year, but if we are in fact good hosts,

[ Page 7477 ]

then they're going to refer relatives or friends or business associates.

I know that we already see the manifestations of a number of Expo legacies, and one clearly is going to be the Canada Place Pacific Trade Centre. Already a number of conventions are planned for that facility.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What did the member for Vancouver Centre say about Expo?

MR. PARKS: Well it's interesting. The Hon. Minister of Forests inquires what the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has recently.... I guess it was just this past weekend — yesterday in fact.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Address the Chair.

MR. PARKS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Vancouver Centre.

MR. PARKS: Sorry. Vancouver Centre.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Address the Chair.

MR. PARKS: Pardon me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. PARKS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

When the second member for Vancouver Centre was being nominated yesterday....

AN HON. MEMBER: First member.

MR. PARKS: Oh, are we going to promote him? Is he the first member?

MR. REID: No, he won't even be that.

MR. PARKS: Well, he will become the first member by accession, I guess. In any event, when he was attending at his nomination meeting yesterday, and being joined on the slate by my dear friend Mikey, the first member for Vancouver Centre was bold enough to acknowledge — honest enough to acknowledge, I guess — that sometimes you lose political issues and political battles. He was referring to the Expo issue. In front of his paltry hundred or so members that turned out for what was supposed to be a spine-tingling and exciting nomination meeting, in front of all of those supporters that the hon. member has, he acceded that notwithstanding the efforts of Mayor Harcourt and the NDP caucus of the day back in 1979, Expo is going to be not only a reality but a phenomenal success for this province. That member acknowledged publicly yesterday afternoon that his caucus, his government, his way of non-development, non-progress.... They lost that political battle, and thank goodness they lost that battle.

In my opinion, our government is meeting its responsibility, and that's to fully develop British Columbia's human potential. I earlier alluded to the fact that we do have, in my opinion, a horrendous number of unemployed youth in this province. This budget contains initiatives to address that very important provisions. Allow me to list them.

There is a $10 million provision for the Challenge 86 program. That's a federal-provincial program that provides work experience during the spring and summer for students and youth. Most British Columbians understand that that is the sole program: well, there are many more. There is further funding to be provided for the B.C. students' venture loan program to help young British Columbians develop entrepreneurial skills. Again, that's a program that was commenced last year. I think on all quarters it is acceded that it was a tremendous success.

This government has made a further allocation of $600,000 to the Ministry of Labour for operation of the Youth Advisory Council and the youth grants program — again, a very concerted effort by this government to ensure that the moneys that we are setting aside are going to be well spent to provide jobs for our youth.

A new allocation of $10 million has been made to fund new programs specifically designed to help unemployed British Columbians gain entry into the labour market and meet the changing needs of employers.

Finally, there is a further $5 million to fund programs aimed at students, recent graduates and youth whose lack of work experience stands as a barrier to their permanent employment.

Mr. Speaker, this budget has set the framework. We are experiencing the benefits of it already. I am sure that anyone who takes the time to analyze the economic policies that are set out therein will agree with this government that it'll be a sound budget and will prove to be a very effective budget. It will be my pleasure to vote in support of this budget.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With all due respect to my colleague from down the row there, I have some points in disagreement with him. I do not stand up in favour of the present budget, because

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Ah, yes, I'll get to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Because it's a rubber-money budget. It's painless. And yet it's ineffectual. I think this budget demonstrates the continued failure of this government to regain control of this economy, to really get its hands on the economic structure and bring things back to order. The budget is another example of this government's failure to do any serious planning. I know that members on the other side see things a little differently, but I hope to be able to present, through some objective analysis of some of the economic indicators, just what this budget fails to do.

[2:45]

I almost get the feeling that it was put together over a Sunday coffee — or maybe an Alka-Seltzer, I don't know. A last ditch attempt to piece together a reason to call this House back into session, when the Premier decided he didn't have anything to go on to call the spring election. Because, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the details of this budget, albeit it's full of all the rhetoric and all the buzzwords and all the positive images, there's really nothing there. There's no evidence of any economic planning. There's no blueprint for any new economic initiatives. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the budget doesn't establish any long-range objectives. It seems

[ Page 7478 ]

just to look ahead to the next few months, or at the most the next year. There are no long-range objectives established in this budget. I get the feeling it puts us in a kind of holding pattern until the Premier can select and isolate his next victim for confrontation, which might give him something to run on in the future. There's certainly no indication of any long range planning.

A continuation of the policies that have gotten this province into trouble in the first place, the policies of a government that has failed in its attempted program of recovery.... It's not happening, Mr. Speaker.

Like this government, this budget can't be trusted. It attempts to mislead ordinary people throughout British Columbia about what's really going on in the economy. It attempts to fool people into believing that the government has some magic formula for renewal. Like this government, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a failure.

It's a failure because the objectives that it establishes are impossible to attain. Let me give you a reason. Firstly, it's based upon economic assumptions that have already been demonstrated to be false. It assumes capital spending will increase 8 percent in 1986, and yet a recent StatsCan survey of investment intentions, just done not even two weeks ago, shows that in British Columbia capital investment is estimated to decline in the next fiscal year between 6 and 7 percent.

If you add those numbers together, that's a 14 to 15 percent discrepancy between what the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is saying and what Statistics Canada is saying. Clearly, there's something out of whack here; there's something far out of whack.

The budget also forecasts major increases in tax revenues that can't be supported by the performance in the industrial sector. It makes major tax concessions to the government's corporate friends, yet at the same time it's forecasting incredible increases in revenues from these same sources. If you're going to make tax concessions.... I agree that they may stimulate economic activity slightly, but I don't think it'll do it enough to indicate the incredible increases that have been projected. On top of this, Mr. Speaker, the budget attempts, at the same time, to reduce the deficit. You can't do all of them in the same day. That's why it's a rubber-money budget. It's NSF, as plain as that.

I don't think the government ever intends to have to defend this budget at the end of the fiscal year. I don't think it ever intends to have to demonstrate its performance at the end of the year. The budget estimates a deficit of $875 million, and I think that budget deficit estimate is unreasonably and unrealistically low. It's another deficit budget from a government that seems to be devoid of any real initiative, another deficit that's going to be added on top of an accumulated debt load in the province of British Columbia that now teeters at almost $20 billion.

It took us 104 years of consecutive governments in British Columbia to develop an accumulated debt load, a historic debt of about $4.2 billion. In the last ten years, this government, which has prided itself on its management, has managed to more than quadruple that debt load. Some management, Mr. Speaker. They quadrupled the debt from $4 billion to almost — they almost quintupled it — almost $20 billion. If that's management, we've got some real problems in this province.

If this budget was any good, it would be able to sell itself, but the government doesn't trust this budget to sell itself, and I want to tell you why. They've launched a desperate campaign out there in the media to try to market the budget for them.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: People throughout British Columbia, especially in the member's constituency in Surrey, are looking for something to hang onto, some reason to put their faith back into this government. This budget can't sell itself. It can't do the job, and that's why they're having to go out on a propaganda blitz to try to sell the budget and confuse people with misleading facts.

I'd like to know how much that propaganda blitz is costing this government; I'd like to know how much it's costing the people of British Columbia to tell them something that is blatantly untrue. Thousands of ads went out all over British Columbia the same day this budget came down, all at taxpayers' expense, all trying to sell the public their own wooden nickels.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it demonstrates the fact that this government is refusing.... It's afraid to rely on the professionalism and the unbiased rigour of our good friends in the media up there. You're afraid to rely on them to do your job for you.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Do you rely on them?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Of course I do. I rely on them every day.

To get back to the point, Mr. Speaker, the budget demonstrates a continued failure of this government to deal with the real world out there, to deal with reality, to deal with what ordinary British Columbians, day in and day out, are having to face in this province. It represents the inability of this government and this Premier to deal from a straight deck.

It talks about his plan. What plan? I don't see any economic plan in this budget. There is nothing there. There is no long-range planning. It talks about a growing consensus, Mr. Speaker. The only thing growing out there is disenchantment and resentment. There is no consensus out there.

This budget is a fantasy. It reflects the Premier's portrait of British Columbia as an Alice-in-Wonderland fairy-tale. It fails to address the concerns of the real world; it fails to address the concerns of ordinary British Columbians. It's a world of high unemployment. It's a world of soup lines. It's a world of uncertainty. It's a world of broken dreams. It's a world of lost opportunity. I am not being alarmist when I say that. All you have to do is go out there — into the hinterland, into the interior regions of this province — and see what has been the effect of the last ten years of this government on this province. Go out there and look around at the shops that have closed down, at the people who are unemployed, and you'll see what the real world is like.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not here today. But I want to tell him very straight that there are families out there, throughout British Columbia, that desperately need his help. They're living at half the level of poverty. There are men and women in this proud province who haven't worked in months and even years. There are young people who are entering their adulthood never having known the value of a day's work.

[ Page 7479 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Doom and gloom.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Look around you, my friend. An entire generation of our youth are saying — they've said it to me, and I know young people because I dealt with them on a daily basis before I stood here in the House: "What the hell? Nobody gives a damn anymore." That's what they're saying. They're disfranchised and they're angry.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that what they say to you? Is that how much respect they have for you?

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey is continually interrupting the member for Okanagan North, and she is not in her own seat. Would she please read the rules of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The member is interrupting and the Chair will censure that. However, according to my seating list, the member is sitting in the appropriate seat.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I don't see anything in the rules that says you may interrupt the speaker if you are in your own chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, isn't that interesting?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, there's a world out there where people are quietly giving up in despair. You know, you reach a point at which you've exhausted your outrage. You become numb to what is going on around you. Many people in British Columbia have reached that point. They have become totally numb to the hypocrisy of this government, and they've lost faith. I want to emphasize that they've lost faith, and they've lost any semblance of respect for this present administration.

I want to tell the Premier that people all over British Columbia are giving up on him because he doesn't care. They're giving up on this government because it has broken their faith. The program of recovery through restraint was nothing more than a vicious attack on ordinary British Columbians. It insulted people's pride, and it destroyed their trust in the government. It was the wrong medicine at the wrong time. It took an ailing economy and drove it to its knees. Working people throughout B.C. no longer believe this Premier; they no longer trust his government.

We heard the former speaker boast about job creation in the last year. Yes, we have created a few jobs. It has grown about 2.2 percent, or 26,000 jobs in the last year. I think the member said 50,000 jobs in the last month. He 's a little out of whack there. But every one of those jobs was in the greater Vancouver area. There wasn't a single job created in the interior regions of this province. Statistics Canada has indicated that job growth in the interior of this province was nil, zero, zilch. It all went to the greater Vancouver area.

This budget does nothing for the interior. Let me give you some facts for the central and southern interior, for the Okanagan-Boundary area, which goes from Revelstoke all the way down to the border. In 1981 unemployment within that area was 7.7 percent. In 1983, after the restraint program had been introduced, it doubled to 14.2 percent. In February of this year that unemployment level sat at 17.7 percent. You call that job creation? You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Unemployment in the Kamloops area. In the January paper in Kamloops: "Unemployment at 25 Percent." Job creation? Come on, get serious.

Construction occupations are the largest groups affected in unemployment. In the Vernon area 18.7 percent are unemployed in the construction workforce; in Revelstoke, 32 percent; in Salmon Arm 17 percent. And this government calls itself the friend of the construction workforce. Carpenters' local in the interior, 93 percent of them unemployed.

Let me give you some facts on income assistance. The government in the recent budget announced an $11 million reduction in the expenditures for GAIN recipients, for welfare recipients. It said: "This reflects the success of our economic renewal program in creating jobs." Can you believe it? We show dramatic increases in welfare recipients throughout the interior. If you don't believe me, let me give you some facts. Kamloops, 1982, 9,292 recipients; 1984, 15,828; a 70 percent increase in two years. Mr. Speaker, it's still growing. The Okanagan region, 1982, number of GAIN recipients. 10,686: 1984, 17,191; a 61 percent increase in welfare recipients in two years. You call that economic renewal? Shameful!

[3:00]

In British Columbia in the last four years, total bankruptcies are up 127 percent; business bankruptcies are up 124 percent. Those are your own statistics from your own ministry. The record of business bankruptcies between '81 and '84 — let me give you the percentage increase: North Okanagan up 214 percent; central Okanagan up 230 percent; Columbia Shuswap, 173 percent increase; Okanagan-Similkameen, 143 percent; Thompson-Nicola, which includes Kamloops, a 256 percent spiral in business bankruptcies in this time. Total bankruptcies — let's look at figures for '84. Central Okanagan, a continued increase since '84 of another 14 percent; Columbia-Shuswap, 47 percent further increase; Okanagan-Similkameen, 28 percent increase; Kamloops, another 25 percent.

Mr. Speaker, we can play with figures, but they speak for themselves. This government's program of economic renewal has been an unmitigated failure; it has not worked. It has not addressed the concerns of the people of the interior of this province. Yes, there have been jobs created in the Vancouver area, largely as a result of Expo; and I give Expo credit for that. But it hasn't done a dam thing for the central portion of this province.

Let me go over some general concerns, Mr. Speaker. Forestry is a very important concern in the interior of this province. I know the new Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) will want to listen with great interest to the facts I have to relay. In the Okanagan, in the central interior, forestry is our most important resource. The Okanagan timber supply area supplies 13,000 person-years of employment: $82.4 million in an annual payroll; $82.5 million in contract payments; 16,000 jobs; almost $70 million in taxes. It's big business up there. But it's in bad shape.

The Shuswap-Okanagan Forestry Association has been appealing for a number of years for more government commitment to proper forest management. What are its needs in the Shuswap-Okanagan area? It needs at least $16.5 million per year on intensive reforestation and silviculture. What are the current expenditures? In 1984, $5.4 million; not even a third of that required to just maintain the health of the industry, so that they don't run out of usable timber down the road.

[ Page 7480 ]

The Okanagan timber supply area, I should point out, goes from Revelstoke all the way down to the border; and enclosed within it is the Kamloops forest region. The Kamloops forest region has experienced a 29 percent increase in non-sufficiently restocked land. It's bare land; it's been logged and hasn't been replanted. A 32 percent increase in good and medium sites that have not been replanted.

The ERD agreement has been heralded by the members across the way as their commitment to reforestation. Remember the figure that I said earlier: we need almost $16.5 million each year for reforestation. What does ERDA give to the Shuswap-Okanagan area? Just $1.2 million per year. I think it's a little short, a little weak. The money doesn't even begin to address the needs for intensive reforestation.

The proposed establishment of the forest stand management, as was mentioned in the budget, is a good idea. I don't knock it at all. There's not enough in it; $20 million won't go very far. You're asking the municipalities and private enterprise to chip in. I think they might be a little worried about chipping in to a program that could be cancelled, and the money confiscated and dumped back into revenues. You say it can't happen? I say it can, because you did exactly that with the forest and range resources fund back in 1982. You took $84 million in forest renewal funds, gutted the forest and range resource fund, left it with nothing in there, and dumped that money into consolidated revenue. Now, lo and behold, you're giving us a whole $20 million back. Well, thank you very much, but it doesn't quite do the job. It's the old shell game again.

This government has failed to demonstrate a real commitment to intensive reforestation. The $300 million ERDA forestry agreement is insufficient. The experts estimate that we're going to need to spend about $300 million annually — not over five years, but annually — to address reforestation adequately, and we haven't done it.

Let me turn quickly to education. Throughout the interior almost every school is unable to meet last year's service levels with the present fiscal framework. Now that means one of two things: either they're going to have to reduce service, lay off staff, or they're going to have to hike property taxes. They have no choice; you haven't given them any choice. Throughout British Columbia we need a total of $65 million to maintain present levels of service. That's nothing to do with salaries; that's just buying books and necessary materials.

With few exceptions, most districts that we've surveyed are going to suffer huge funding shortfalls, and the boards that I've talked to are angry that this government is playing politics with education. They're angry that you've forced the local boards into doing your dirty work for you. There's a universal belief out there in every board that we talk to that the Excellence in Education fund is nothing more than a joke. The $110 million put into Excellence in Education is simply that: it's a political slush fund and it's wide open to abuse. The boards have to come, literally, cap in hand to this government to ask for funding, to ask for favours, and you think that's not open to favouritism? Boy, what an abuse of this government's authority.

Government has to stop using education as a political football. We have to get education out of the political arena and leave it to the local boards to make those decisions. You guys have screwed that one up entirely. The $110 million should go into providing the necessary, basic level of funding, not into a political slush fund. It's continued interference with the budget process.

If this government was to take excellence in education seriously, it would trust the wisdom of the locally elected boards and allow a return to sensible levels of funding. Let me give you an example — let me give you many examples, very quickly. I don't want to throw too many figures, but these ones are important: Arrow Lakes School District — $190,000 needed to maintain present levels of service. This is the amount of money just to maintain levels of service, not including any salaries. School District 15 in Penticton— $200,000 short; School District 19 in Revelstoke — $200,000 short; School District 22 in Vernon — a $450,000 deficit; School District 23 in Kamloops — the budget which they're submitting is $3.1 million above the guidelines, above what they're allowed. That's what they need to keep things going. If they don't, homeowners in Kamloops, which is sitting there with 25 percent unemployment, are going to face an almost 4 percent increase in their homeowner taxes. School District 77, Summerland, has a budget shortfall of $220,000. They refuse to submit any budget that is going to further cut the services, and as a result taxes are going to go up.

The figures I have just given you are figures for school boards throughout the central and southern interior. If you take those shortfalls that are needed to maintain present levels of service and add them together — if my arithmetic is correct — it comes out to just a little over $5 million.

You know what? If we look at the $6.5 million that's just been advocated for Expo's special visitors' program, using that money and putting it into the educational needs of the school boards throughout the interior would alleviate their problems. Instead, the needs of these school districts are being subverted so this government can wine and dine the dignitaries. Well, I tell you, six and a half million bucks is going to be one hell of a party. Where the devil are your priorities? Where the devil are they? Get them straight.

I want to go over some local concerns that have been ignored. Shuswap-Revelstoke — export of raw logs to other areas: the government has failed to pick up on this. There is over $12 million each year lost in processing activity, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) sits there and ignores it. The lack of access to timber has been a problem. The individual operators simply can't get access. There is a consistent undercut by Westar, and yet the little guy can't get any lumber.

There's been no program to increase this access. The closure of the Downie Street sawmill, with 250 out of work.... The logs are now being exported out of that area. No help for these people.

Additional funds for milfoil removal just requested by the Columbia-Shuswap region were denied. Quality of life — there's your commitment to environment. Unemployment in Salmon Arm, Armstrong and Enderby is sitting around 25 to 30 percent. Where is the voice of concern on these issues? I'll tell you where he is — handing out lottery money in Okanagan North. He's so busy paying attention to those things that nobody up there can find him. Okanagan South, agriculture. There's nothing in the budget for agriculture. There's no assistance for the majority of farmers who are in severe financial difficulty throughout the Okanagan Valley, including Boundary-Similkameen.

[ Page 7481 ]

Environment: I didn't see anything in the budget dealing with this new $26 million sewerage assistance program. The Premier has been silent on the use of toxic chemicals in the Crown forests dispute — refusal to talk to the school boards, refusal to talk to the college students. Where is the voice of concern?

Headlines in Kamloops: one-quarter of the people jobless. Hard times remain in Kamloops. Even the regional Expo committee has gone bankrupt. That's economic renewal? It's not happening in the interior of British Columbia. Ordinary British Columbians have not tasted economic recovery. The Premier of this government has turned his back on the interior of this province. His budget reflects that truth. People are leaving the interior. They're voting already and they're voting with their feet.

The spending priorities of this government continue to be caught up with the glitz and the glimmer, but those projects are draining tax dollars from the communities in the interior. They're acting like gigantic tax siphons pulling money out of those areas, and not replacing it with any local job creation. They're draining the lifeblood from the interior communities in sacrifice for beautiful downtown British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, people in the interior are tired of being ignored. They're tired of playing poor country cousin. They're embarrassed and humiliated by this government, and they're angry with this government. They're angry with its failure to understand, with its failure to care for people. They're angry with its isolation and its utter arrogance. People throughout the interior....

Let me rephrase that. People throughout British Columbia are preparing to send this tired and empty government a message. The message is that they don't believe you anymore. They don't trust you anymore. You destroyed their confidence, insulted their intelligence and they believe it's time for a change.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the lack of a quorum. I'm sure everyone wants to come in and listen to the member's remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, I will summon other members by ringing the bells and.... We're okay. Please proceed.

[3:15]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, once again it gives me pleasure to participate in the budget debate during this new budget that was tabled by the minister last Thursday.

The last speaker, the member for Okanagan North, made reference to a couple of items in my constituency, and while he's still in the House I should set him straight on a couple of things. The first one has to do with the milfoil program. If the member would go back just two short years, I think he would find that the milfoil program has been increased fivefold since I've been the MLA for that constituency. Further to that, if he examined the documents on file as received by the regional district, he would find that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) has stated very clearly that sometime in the fall he will be examining the performance of the past year, and the performance of the new fiscal year starting April 1, to see the success of the program, and if additional funds are required at that time he would be prepared to have a look at it. I'm sure the member will find that if he wishes to check the records, rather than leave the House and my constituents with the false impression that an adequate job is not being done in conquering and attacking the milfoil in the Shuswap Lake system.

The member made another remark about Downie Street Sawmills being shut down. Yes, it's true, Downie Street Sawmills is shut down. Several forest products operations throughout British Columbia are shut down; no fault of the provincial government, Mr. Speaker, but a result of the international recession that not only the forest industry has faced, but the mining industry throughout the length and breadth of this province as well. The member is well aware of that.

Before the member leaves the House, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to please cooperate with me — perhaps he can exert more influence on them than I can — and talk to the local union involved with Downie Street Sawmills. I've been trying now for over six weeks to get the local union officers involved with a very interested buyer who wishes to enter into a fifty-fifty ownership relationship with the employees. He is attempting to work through the union, and up to this point very little progress has been made, even though we have an anxious buyer who would meet on about two hours' notice, either in the Kamloops office of the local union or in Vancouver. The member will find, if he wishes to investigate, that I went to the trouble to make inquiries of the critical industries commissioner, and Mr. Phillips of the critical industries commission has been most helpful. He has put some very generous offers on the table. If these two parties would just get down to his office and meet with him to try to put a package together.... The buyer is very interested. He's prepared to be in Vancouver in the critical industries commissioner's office on very short notice — one day would probably suffice. If the member would care to make a phone call to the local union president, I am sure it might assist in getting those workers back to work. I can assure the member that the MLA from Shuswap-Revelstoke has left no stone unturned in an attempt to get that operation back working again. I have the employees' interests at heart. I have met with them on many occasions — as recently as last Saturday in the city of Revelstoke — and they understand the situation very clearly, in regard to what's going on.

Mr. Speaker, he also made some reference to all the dollars being spent in the lower mainland — nothing is happening in the interior. Perhaps he's not spending enough time up my way. Had he been spending some time up that way, he would have found that several million dollars are going to be spent on highway improvement throughout my constituency. On one stretch alone, between Cambie and Malakwa, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million is going to be spent in the current fiscal year on highway improvements — as well as major improvements and upgrading of roads throughout the entire constituency.

MR. MacWILLIAM: What about the unemployment?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Member, I am well aware that unemployment is high. I am afraid we are not going to resolve that problem by inflating the facts, by continual negative comments and negative speeches about how terrible things are throughout the province, when the member knows full well that the provincial government is doing everything in its power to create much-needed jobs throughout the entire province of British Columbia. He refuses to look at the facts as to what British Columbia has had to put up with as a result of the international recession. He knows better, I am sure, but

[ Page 7482 ]

he refuses to analyze those facts and explain that to his constituents. He knows full well, for example, that the forest products industry in the province of British Columbia has lost somewhere between 17,000 and 20,000 workers in the last three years. And he knows that, as a result of the multiplier effect, the total job loss is probably 120,000 workers throughout the province of British Columbia.

I see he chooses to leave the House now and not listen to the rest of the debate, which is very interesting. It's typical of that member, who chooses to attack — negative, negative, negative — and when it comes to listening to the facts, he chooses to leave the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the budget. I think it is obviously a result of good fiscal management when a government and a Minister of Finance can bring in a document with so many positive things in it: increased expenditures on municipalities, increased expenditures on education, massive amounts of money being spent on health, jobs for students, and several increases in other areas. It's very indicative to me that the Minister of Finance and the government of British Columbia have done their work well.

It's good to see that the minister has agreed to a 21.5 percent increase in the base budget for the forest industry, which I am primarily interested in — it's the industry I have worked in pretty well all my life. As a result of the ERDA agreement with the federal government, this will mean that spending from that agreement alone — never mind the base budget increase — on silviculture and reforestation is going to double in this new fiscal year. In the first fiscal year, ending March 31, $22 million was spent on reforestation out of the ERDA agreement alone, not to mention the amounts spent by the provincial government and private industry; the ERDA agreement alone was budgeted for $22 million in its first year of a five-year program. This coming year that amount will be doubled to $44 million. We will see $78 million spent under the ERDA agreement in each of the three succeeding years.

In 1987-88 we will see new seedlings planted reach a figure of 200 million trees a year. Let me tell you that in my first year in politics I had meetings with several foresters and many associations dealing with the forest industry. That was the target they all emphasized they wanted to see reached — 200 million seedlings a year — and that target is going to be met in 1987-88.

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the topic of forestry, silviculture and reforestation, we should also look at the announcement of the new forest management fund. The opposition will continue, as they do with many positive things this government brings in, to ridicule this fund. But I think that we can look forward to cooperation from the federal government, industry, the unions and the municipalities to make this new forest management fund a reality and to make it a dramatic success in its first year, and we can look forward to many future years of success through the cooperation of all parties involved.

When you look at the amount of money that the provincial government is putting in, $20 million, and we're asking for the federal government to match that amount by $20 million, to get the cooperation of three other bodies — being the industry unions and municipalities — to come up with a total of $70 million, I would be very interested and very surprised if the federal government did not agree to match that fund to the tune of $20 million. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if they agree to put $20 million into this $70 million fund, they will more than save the $20 million through the unemployment insurance payments alone. So I think that the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance have a very good chance and this government has a very good chance of convincing the federal government to match this amount of $20 million.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

Further to that, we must be looking at industry to do their share as well. I'm sure that the Minister of Forests will be having some meetings very shortly with the various forestry associations throughout the province of B.C. to find a way for them to divvy up another $20 million, to match the amount of money put in by the provincial government, to put into this tremendous new forest management fund. Based on 50,000 employees — and I can say in all competence that there are a lot more people directly involved in the forest industry than 50,000 employees — and in a 12-month calendar, if you look at $20 million to the forest industry, it's significantly less than 20 cents an hour, and when you look at the tremendous savings that they just experienced in their WCB premium reductions, and with the modest upturn that we're witnessing in the forest industry right now, I don't think that it's an impossible task to expect the forest industry to find $20 million.

Also, looking at the unions and the IWA and the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, the ministry has suggested that they might find $5 million. I can tell you that that's about 5 cents an hour. On an average rate of pay of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17 to $18 an hour, I don't think that to ask for 5 cents an hour — which will be tax deductible, which will mean it'll be down to about 3 cents an hour — is an unreasonable request to lay on the forest industry unions.

As to asking the municipalities for $5 million, I'm sure there will be a very positive response from municipalities all across British Columbia to participating to the tune of one-fourteenth — that's $5 million in a $70 million fund, Mr. Speaker. That's a one-fourteenth contribution to have hundreds or more workers throughout the province of B.C. working in the silviculture weeding and thinning programs that are much needed throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

This $70 million, this new forest management fund — the concept behind it is not necessarily to plant more trees, but to thin the carrot patch — attend the garden, so to speak — because we have a problem in reforestation. It's not just enough to plant new seedlings. You must get in there and tend it after those seedlings are planted. You must take out the weeds, do some thinning and spacing. Members should be aware that in the forest industry there are millions upon millions of natural seedlings. Natural regeneration takes place every season in the province. All the seedlings don't have to be planted by hand. Nature does a pretty good job. In fact, one of the problems is that nature does too good a job. Anyone that's been out in the forest will witness that when nature seeds, it seeds too thick. There are just too many new seedlings growing in a confined area, and they need to be thinned like a carrot patch. The real idea behind this new forest management fund is to tackle the problem in that way.

[3:30]

Before I take my seat I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for what I consider to be the tremendous job that he's been doing in managing the financial affairs of

[ Page 7483 ]

the province of British Columbia. If one were to go back to the first nine months of this current fiscal year, the fiscal year we're still in, if you look at the statements tabled by the Minister of Finance for the first nine months, you will find that the expenditures in that period, as compared to the nine months in the previous year, increased by only 3.03 percent. I would suggest to all British Columbians and members of the House that that is a clear indication that the financial house is in order in the province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, in excess of $100 million was spent on fighting the very serious forest fire problem in the summer of 1985, and if you were to deduct that from the expenditure column — the amount of money that was spent in the first nine months of the 1985-86 fiscal year — you would find that the increase would not have been 3.03 percent but 1.49 percent, a clear indication that this government has its expenditures under control and its financial house in order.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, if you were to deduct the extra money spent on the Coquihalla Highway, which was a deliberately planned project to get that highway open for 1986 Expo, you would find that not only did the expenditure column not increase by 1.49 percent but in fact the government could have shown a reduction in expenditures in the first nine months of this fiscal year as compared to the previous fiscal year.

I listen to the opposition, and I've got to wonder sometimes. They talk about the plan of the provincial government. I would sincerely like to hear about their plans. I know that our area — in my constituency — is really looking forward to Coquihalla 1. I suggest that when the Coquihalla system is completed, it will prove to be a bigger boon for those interior communities than Expo 86. Coquihalla I will be open sometime in the middle of May of this year. Coquihalla 2 will be open before the snow flies in 1987. Work will be commencing this year on Coquihalla 3, and we expect to see that highway open sometime within the next two or three years.

I look at the tremendous extensions and improvements to the overall infrastructure system throughout British Columbia. I look at improvements in hydro supply, at the extended highways, the new systems, the new Annacis Island bridge, I look at the announcement in the throne speech for further extensions to the natural gas — servicing communities, servicing industry, bringing down the cost of manufacturing and processing — and I listen to the opposition talking about not having a plan.

I've looked at the performance of this government in reducing the cost of business, lowering hydro, the naming of the critical industries commissioner, which has resulted in the saving of a couple of thousand jobs in British Columbia. I look at the announced reductions to corporations in this budget — reducing the corporate tax from 16 percent to 14 percent. I took at all of the things this government has done — reducing property tax as a result of the elimination of taxation on machinery and equipment; making the doing of business in the province of British Columbia more attractive, more economical and more competitive — and I listen to the opposition talking about this government not having any plans.

I look at the tremendous job done not only by the government in reducing the cost of government; I look at the job the government has done through their Crown corporations in reducing the cost of administration. As a result of those kinds of things, we see a reduction in ICBC premiums of about 6 or 6.5 percent in the current fiscal year. Along with that, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has got two reserve funds — rainy day accounts — in excess of $70 million, a result of good fiscal management.

I listened to the chairman of B.C. Hydro speaking about projecting no further increases in Hydro rates for as far ahead as five years, a result of good fiscal management, a result of trimming the cost of administration and overhead. Then I hear about the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who recently made an announcement that there would be zero ferry rate increases in 1986, the year of Expo. I'm sure he was perhaps tempted somewhat to look at a slight increase, but no increase in ferry rates, again as a result of good management not only in government but throughout the entire system.

Mr. Speaker, when the opposition is speaking, I wish they would be a bit more specific on what exactly they would do. What are they going to be offering the voters in the next provincial election? What are they going to say to them? That they're going to cancel the Coquihalla Highway extensions? Is that what they're going to do? The last speaker was talking about all of the much-needed, the drastically needed money by all these school boards throughout the province of British Columbia, and he named several boards, and he named the amounts. He says that money is drastically needed — they're desperate. I would like some member of the opposition to stand up and tell this House, so the people of British Columbia will know exactly what their position is: are they going to give 100 percent of all those requests? Just answer that question yes or no. I would like to hear it for my own edification.

They talk about the much-needed 50 percent increase in welfare rates. I'm not denying that that money might be needed depending what set of statistics you look at. Are they going to grant a 50 percent increase? I'd like them to answer that question yes or no.

While they're talking about those things, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if they intend to increase the deficit. If they do, please tell us. Or are they going to decrease the deficit? If they're going to decrease the deficit, where are they going to find the money from the programs? Which programs are they going to cut to decrease the deficit?

Are they going to give generous increases to civil servants' demands for further wage increases, as they did back in the seventies? Are they going to be giving another 28 percent increase in wages and benefits? I'd like to have the answer to that, and I'm sure British Columbians would like to have the answer to that. Do they intend to have a smaller deficit or a bigger deficit? If they're going to cut programs, which programs are they going to cut? If they're going to add to it, where are they going to find the money? Those are the kind of things that I'm sure people throughout the province would like to hear.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, there were a lot of very good, positive things in the budget. I was very happy to see the Minister of Finance announce a cap on gasoline tax. I received a lot of comments and concerns throughout my constituency, and I'm very pleased that that there will be no further increases in this fiscal year. The gasoline tax can go down, but it can't go up. I think that was a very good move and is going to satisfy a lot of concerns.

But if you look at all the good things in the budget whether it's health, education, student employment, the student venture loan program — I can go on and on and one, but

[ Page 7484 ]

I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that the one that is dearest to my heart is the one I've devoted most time to today: the increase of 21.5 percent in forestry, the increased tree-planting program and the formation of this new forest management fund. I think that will prove to be of benefit not only to my constituency but to constituencies throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia, because I believe that the forest industry is the greatest industry of British Columbia. It's a greater industry than mining or gas and oil, and it's greater for the plain and simple fact that it's renewable. It's a crop. You cut it down, you reseed it and future generations have got it for their use. You can't say that about a copper mine or a coal mine or a gas well or an oil field. But you do have it in forestry. I think it's a great industry, and I'm glad to see this reforestation program increased by about 250 percent. We will be planting in 1987-88 two and a half times the amount that they were planting in the NDP years of 1972-75.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have a bit of a grin on my face when I listen to members opposite talking about reforestation. It's very interesting to go over to the province of Manitoba and see what they're spending over there on reforestation and the number of seedlings they're putting in the ground, because....

MRS. JOHNSTON: What is it? Tell us.

MR. MICHAEL: Well, you just go to your research and find out, and you'll find out that there's been a significant decrease since the NDP have come to power in the last couple of years. There's been a decrease in the number of seedlings planted in Manitoba since the NDP have come to power during the last couple of years. You can't help but have a bit of a grin, Mr. Speaker. You listen to the members opposite debating, and then you go and look at the facts. They criticize the fact that a piddling 50,000 new jobs have been created in British Columbia. They criticize that and it's negative, negative, negative. I'm the first to admit that among those 50,000 jobs there are lots of part-timers — o doubt about that. But it pays once in a while to go over and have a look at that province that's heralded as the example for all of Canada, Manitoba, where the NDP are in power. If you check the exact same 12-month period as measured in British Columbia by the exact same people — Statistics Canada — and look at Manitoba, you'll see that in British Columbia there are 50,000 more people working today than there were 12 months ago; in Manitoba it's 14,000.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think what bothers me most about this budget is the deception it contains, because it's a dishonest document. I don't understand why this government cannot level with the people of the province. I don't understand why they have to bring in these kinds of misleading figures, the misinformation contained in this document that was presented to us last week by the Minister of Finance.

Why don't they admit to the people of the province that the province is in desperate straits in terms of its economy and its financial situation? Why don't they tell the people of British Columbia what the situation is? Why don't they say to us, Mr. Speaker...? Why don't they tell us? Why don't they admit it, and say: "We have made a gross mistake. The tack that we took in 1983 was incorrect. Yes, we now agree with Richard McAlary, chief economist for the B.C. Central Credit Union, who has stated that the moves, the policies and the programs adopted by this government in 1983 have held back recovery in British Columbia"? Why don't they admit it? Why do they have to continue to mislead and manipulate the people of the province of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you be negative?

MS. SANFORD: That is the most positive thing that I can say to this government: be honest for a change, and maybe you will get somewhere. Maybe the people of British Columbia will begin to trust this government, Mr. Speaker, if in fact, for once, they could be honest with them. That's not what's happened in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, the debt load that has been created by this government will be a millstone around the neck of the people of British Columbia for generations to come. You know, it's bad enough that our young people can't find work; that they feet that they have no place in our economy. They feel that they can't make any kind of contribution. And then, on top of that, we saddle them with this kind of incredible debt that this government has built up over the years. They have no plan, Mr. Speaker. They have no way out. They only thing that they have is a document that attempts to mislead the people of this province, in the hopes that they can get re-elected again. That's what the situation is.

[3:45]

What makes matters worse is that the government is using money, which could be used to create jobs for some of these young people, in order to advertise this false document. They are advertising in the newspapers, on radio and on television, using money that is so badly needed to create jobs, to provide a better education system, to provide better health services in the province, in order to try to manipulate the people of this province.

The overall figures are misleading, Mr. Speaker. The government is grossly overestimating what it thinks will come in revenue this year and underestimating what they know they're going to have to spend, in order to mislead the people of the province.

I think my colleague from Nanaimo, the debate leader for the Ministry of Finance, outlined very clearly the other day the situation with respect to the deceit that's contained in that document.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

MS. SANFORD: It is deceit.

Mr. Speaker, there is dismay felt out there. I think that I can only echo the words of the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, Mr. Eric Buckley, who on the weekend asked for an honest document. That's all he asked for — an honest document. Not only are the overall figures misleading; the various figures within the document are misleading. Special funds for education. The same day that they cut $11 million out of the textbook fund they bring in another special fund which will provide textbooks. Now who's being fooled by that? I can tell you, Eric Buckley, the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, is not being fooled by that kind of nonsense.

I'd like to quote to you from one of the people from the mid-Island area, one of the people who serves on the school board in School District 69 — not an NDP member, Mr. Speaker. His name is Patrick Denton. He's quoted, based on the budget debate that they had within their school district.... He says the following:

[ Page 7485 ]

"The fiscal framework we have been given is a Trojan Horse, fraught with measures that are weapons against the educational system. I have sat here for 18 months — and I'm not being political — but I'm very mad. I'm very angry, and I think that we have come to point in this province where the Ministry of Education and the school board have to work together in support of education. But that hasn't happened.

"Even people on the political right, who would normally be expected to support the Social Credit government's educational policies, are speaking out against them."

He gave the example of Eric Buckley, president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, who has led the group "down the high road against a government that in my view no longer cares." This is what we have come to in this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Denton said that the board has witnessed the decimation of the system, and that he only supports submitting the budget on the basis that it is a provisional budget. He said: "I think it is time that our students, our teachers and our support people in the public got the message that this board is no longer going to be a partner in the destruction of the education system."

MR. HANSON: Partners in destruction.

MS. SANFORD: He doesn't want to be a partner in destruction, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the ads and the budget tell us that there will be no increase in taxes. Yet the budget shows that we're going to have a $273 million increase in personal income tax, including that surcharge that was put on for so-called health benefits. If you work that out, that comes to an increase of about $200 per household increase in taxes that people are going to be paying this year. No wonder people are angry — using their money to advertise misinformation.

MR. PARKS: Don't distort the facts.

MS. SANFORD: Why don't you listen? Why don't you be quiet?

MR. PARKS: Just don't distort the facts, and I will.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously did not listen to that last comment, and it is not worth going over it again for his benefit.

I checked on Friday with the building trades people on Vancouver Island to find out what is happening in that mid-island area. Do you what the unemployment rate is, Mr. Speaker, among the building trades on Vancouver Island? It is 92 percent as of Friday. That's recovery?

Mr. Speaker, the moves that the government made have been detrimental to the province of British Columbia, and they are felt very strongly within the constituency that I represent. There are 2,600 people on welfare in the Courtenay area, in that little area alone on mid-Vancouver Island, with an additional 950 on the rolls down at the MHR office in Parksville.

Crown Forest Industries has had to close down its Courtenay operations, which only adds to the problems in that mid-Island area. Mr. Speaker. the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board has issued a booklet which deals with some of the figures on Vancouver Island with respect to the economy and its future. One of the things that they point out in their book which they published last year is contained on page 82: "Over the entire ten-year period from 1975 to 1984, the northern Vancouver Island labour market performed less satisfactorily than the B.C. or Canadian average. Its situation has become relatively worse in the post-'81 period." So all of the moves that were made in 1983, that marvellous so-called restraint program, the cutbacks in education, the cutbacks in health services, the cutbacks that were made almost everywhere, have resulted in increases in unemployment.

These are real estate people that we're talking about. These are the figures and the statements that they are making. From the same book: "The Regional District of Comox-Strathcona has experienced a decrease in building permits issued. A total of 368 permits were issued in 1984 as compared with 561 in 1983." That's recovery, Mr. Speaker? Those are the moves of this government that are supposed to be improving the situation in the province. All of those figures indicate that the exact opposite has been happening.

Mr. Speaker, the cutbacks have been particularly severe in any institutional construction as far as the government is concerned; and of the institutional and government spending, the hardest hit areas and the biggest cuts occurred in that Parksville-Qualicum area, with decreases of 155 percent in expenditures. That's supposed to be part of the recovery program, is it, Mr. Speaker, to put more and more people out of work? Increase those welfare rolls? Make the young people of our province even more desperate?

That's what has been happening. When you have an entire campus close down, as the Malaspina campus at Parksville did.... That's the kind of thing that happens in those communities. But all of that is supposed to help the economy, make things better for British Columbia. All of the figures we have indicate that that's not happening.

Last Wednesday's edition of the Comox District Free Press says that the second month of the new year saw a Comox Valley unemployment figure of 16.2 percent. That figure, representing Vancouver Island as a whole, with the exception of Victoria, indicates that the Island is still considerably behind B.C. as a whole. The provincial average is 13.8 percent. The national unemployment figure, however, is 10.7 percent. Here in British Columbia we've been held back by a government that has embarked upon exactly the wrong economic programs in order to bring us out of this recession. There were 3,748 active unemployment insurance claimants in February in the Comox Valley, and that's up from what it was in January. Usually January is one of the highest months for unemployment because of the seasonal nature of some of those jobs. But February was even higher. And we get a rosy picture in this budget that was presented to us.

The only thing is: the figures aren't accurate. They're misleading and they're deceitful. People are getting tired of being manipulated. They're getting tired of having their tax money used for political advertising which doesn't even give the facts. It's misinformation at their expense, while their kids are going without work, while they have people within their families who can't get hospital care when they need it,

[ Page 7486 ]

while their kids at school are forced to do without because of the horrendous cutbacks that have occurred.

Within the mid-Island area there is a fairly significant agricultural community. A number of people involved in agriculture in my part of the province have gone bankrupt. There is absolutely no increase, no hope for them under the budget that has been presented — nothing. If you take inflation into account, it represents a decrease for them.

What do we find from the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser)? He's saying that, no, it'll be a few years yet before they ever think about an inland bypass route in that mid-Island area. In 1984, according to information that we find in a report done for the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, which the minister calls socialist information — at least, that's what he said the other day in the House....

HON. A. FRASER: I said it was socialist arithmetic.

MS. SANFORD: Well, okay. Maybe the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities is socialist. I had never thought that before, but if the minister says so, I guess it must be the case. Is that it?

On Vancouver Island in 1984 the per capita expenditure on highways was $14. In the rest of the province the per capita expenditure on highways in the same year was not twice that — not $28. It was $203, according to the report done by consultants for the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities.

[4:00]

The people within those constituencies are angry at this kind of political expenditure of funds that they have contributed to. Their tax moneys are being utilized elsewhere in this province. They are being neglected. They want the jobs; they want the highway. It's long overdue. It's one of the most dangerous in this province, and the Minister of Highways knows it. At one time — I think the year was 1979; I should have brought those quotes with me — the minister said in this Legislature that that highway was one of the busiest highways in the province. He said he couldn't wait to get the construction of that road completed. Then in 1985 he said in the House that the traffic figures didn't warrant construction. Well, the people in my constituency know that those traffic figures warrant construction. They know that that highway should have been constructed years ago, and they know that this government is using highway funds politically. Rather than building highways on need, they're building highways in order to suit their own political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the mid-Island area are fed up with this kind of treatment. They're fed up with the dishonesty of this government, they're fed up with the use of their funds for advertising purposes, they're fed up with being manipulated by this government, and they can't wait for an election to ensure that this government is thrown out.

MR. PASSARELL: Debating this budget today has overshadowed the military action that's taking place right now between Libya and the United States. It's quite difficult to stand and talk or come back and say that something isn't dishonest and it's not a truthful budget when we're almost on the brink of a nuclear war — the possibility exists. It's pretty difficult for me to stand in my place and come back on the member for Comox when something of this nature is taking place in the Mediterranean today.

Oscar Wilde one time said that in this world there are only two types of tragedies: one is not getting what you want, and the other is getting it. I guess when we look at the context of what's happening today in this budget, it can be looked upon from both sides as a tragedy. I'm concerned when we start using the words "truthful" and "deception" and "fraudulent." Often these are the terms that have been used by people like Khadafy and Reagan when they're talking with each other concerning their problems in those countries. I don't know if it's really a fraudulent budget, as the leader of the Tory party, Mr. Peter Pollen, has said. I'll be talking about Pollen a little bit later.

I'm going to just speak about my own constituency and what's happening up there right now. In the paper this week the leader of the Conservative Party in British Columbia said there was nothing in this budget for the forestry or mining industry. I don't know. Somebody should get this man a new pair of glasses and put some lenses in it for him so he can read, because there's definitely something in the Atlin constituency when it comes to mining and forestry. A perfect example is the Klappan coal project, which this government is supporting through port development in the municipality of Stewart. It is hiring people today. There are people working up there today on the new port development. Road construction for the Klappan coal project is happening.

I heard last week — and I mentioned this in the throne speech debate in regard to student employment.... I wish I had a magic formula to enable all students to work, but I just noticed in this budget that the student employment fund is up 50 percent to $15 million. I was quite concerned a couple of weeks ago when I got a copy of letter sent to the district of Stewart in which a union head in Terrace said that he didn't want any projects approved in the district of Stewart until the union gave their okay for student employment programs for the summer. I'm quite concerned about that, because students do need the opportunity to work, and if there is an opportunity, I don't think somebody should tell them that they shouldn't be able to work.

MR. REID: Right on. Jobs are the main thing.

MR. PASSARELL: Jobs — that's right, the main thing.

Education funding is up in this budget. We've seen in the last couple of years new schools built in just about every community in the Stikine School District: Telegraph Creek, Atlin, the community I live in, Cassiar, Dease Lake, Iskut, and expansion of the new school at Lower Post will be starting this summer. It takes money to pay for the new schools up there. It has been a long time coming, and this government is going ahead with it.

Municipal revenue-sharing has increased in this budget by 9 percent. I think this will be beneficial for the only municipality in the Atlin constituency, Stewart. We've seen a positive mood in the area around Stewart in the last couple of months with the Klappan project. It will benefit the entire area.

Another aspect in which this budget is increased is in health. We've seen that they've provided funding just in the last few months for the Stewart General Hospital.

MR. REID: Right. Doctors for Atlin, too.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right, we do have two new doctors up there now. But when the leader of the Tory party

[ Page 7487 ]

comes out and says this budget is fraudulent, it's pretty hard to go and tell the people of Stewart that it's fraudulent when they see that their hospital is going to continue as is, with increased funding. It's pretty difficult to tell the people in Stewart that it's fraudulent because it doesn't deal with mining, when they're seeing a Klappan coal project come on stream. We see the new forestry stand management fund providing up to $20 million to create jobs in Silviculture, weeding and thinning. The forest renewal increases the base budget by more than 21 percent. But then nobody could ever accuse Peter Pollen of being bright.

An issue that.... When I went back to the riding this week.... It's beautiful up there now; the roads are in nice and icy conditions and it's break-up. But that has nothing to do with the budget or any government; that's Mother Nature. But passing out the budget, what the people in the area were very pleased with was the motor fuel tax rate being capped at January 1, 1986 levels and the statement that the tax will decrease with oil prices in 1986-87. Unfortunately, our gas prices in the Atlin area are the highest in the entire province. As a matter of fact, what we're paying for gas is even higher than in some areas in the Yukon. It certainly isn't the federal government that is coming out and trying to help with gas prices. You look back at the federal government over the last couple of years, and it's the reason that we're paying such high taxes. It's this provincial government that is capping the tax level on this.

An issue that I would like to discuss on a personal basis and that I would like to have seen in this budget is Sunday openings. I think it is a long time coming. The people who have come down from the Atlin constituency to meet with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) have found him a very straightforward gentleman when discussing these issues, and I think we will see some positive moves in this area in the near future.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I'd like to. When we talk about Sunday openings — particularly we in Atlin — we're surrounded by Sunday openings. To the north, the Yukon is open on Sundays. To the east is west Alaska; it's open on Sundays. With Expo coming on, we have to have Sunday openings in areas such as Atlin and across this province. We're having too many tourists that are coming into this province right now for Expo, and there should be Sunday openings. I noticed last night when I flew back into Vancouver from Whitehorse.... How many tourists will be flying into Vancouver airport on Sunday? Unless we have those Sunday openings, it's going to hurt. It's not going to give us.... It's going to be more beneficial to have those Sunday openings, and I certainly hope that with the cooperation of this House we'll be able to move forward in that direction.

I'll be supporting this budget because there will be no tax increases. That's one thing I certainly would have felt bad about, if there would have been tax increases. It's a little different than the federal government's budget when you look at what Mr. Michael Wilson has brought down. It takes positive steps for business, stimulating the economy in the Atlin area, with Gulf, the Seren mine that is going on up there and the road construction and the provincial government paying for part of the cost of that road, because we're seeing private entrepreneurs hiring people. We're seeing the Gulf project, in which young people in the Iskut and Deas Lake and Telegraph Creek areas are being employed — the opportunity to work.

The wages of these people working at the Klappan project pay taxes. Those taxes pay for the social services. We see that health care spending is increased. Without people working.... Mr. Peter Pollen says there are very few people left in this province working. I don't know where he gets those figures from, but then, by the same token, I don't know where Peter Pollen comes from half the time anyway. You have to have people working to pay taxes to pay for these increased programs and spending allocations in this budget. Money doesn't grow on trees, and I think the new economic developments in the north and the taxes that will be generated from these new jobs for these young people will build a better future for all of us in this province. I think that's what we're striving for — to build something better.

As I said before, I'm pretty disheartened by what I've heard today in the media in regard to what's happening over in the Mediterranean. I think if we could stay away from these words "truthful," "not being true" and "fraudulent"....We see what happens when these labels get thrown around too much and we have the problems that we do in this world today from people not being able to sit down and cooperate with each other.

Not everything has a silver lining, but by the same token there is some good in this budget, and I'll be supporting it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was not the person to speak at this juncture. I would, however, like to echo some of the words that the member for Atlin spoke. I just heard the news that the Americans and the Libyans are knocking the hell out of each other, and I think it's a darned shame. There's no question that one thinks when one's on his feet in this House that this is a very, very important place to be, and it is very important to the people of British Columbia. But world leaders should remember that they have a responsibility, and that responsibility sometimes is abrogated. It is particularly abrogated when one very powerful nation usurps a small nation, no matter what we think of Khadafy. He is, in my opinion, a pretty unusual person, but no matter what we think of him, he is the leader of that country, and I don't think that the Americans should be usurping their water space, air space, or any other kind of space. That's the way it is.

I will say a word or two about this budget. The member for Atlin maybe hasn't got it quite straight in terms of why people would call it fraudulent, why people would call it unusual, why people would call it dishonest. The reason they're doing that is that this budget does not do the proper thing in terms of expenditure. It takes three separate funds — forests, education and health — and puts those funds into a discretionary account. Now discretion in our democracy is fair enough, but not to the extent that these funds have been granted. Some $120 million for health, for the minister to hand out at will? I wouldn't charge the government with getting political with that money; others would. I would say that's a terrible temptation to put in the hands of any minister, to say to that minister: we want you to spend this money, in consultation with who knows who, on whatever programs you feel might be beneficial to our system. The same thing goes for education and forestry. As far as I'm concerned, that is not a proper way to run the finances of our province.

I'm going to have plenty more to say on that issue, and since I've lost my place now in the budget debate while waiting for a friend.... I notice the friend is here. Mr.

[ Page 7488 ]

Speaker, I will yield the floor at this juncture to my colleague from Vancouver East.

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is supposed to reciprocate, but the next person on the speakers' list is the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan). So with that said, the Chair will recognize in the budget debate the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, people in Prince George will be glad to hear this news, I'm sure.

I just thought I'd start with a few comments with respect to the cabinet-building that's been going on in British Columbia, or at least the rebuilding that's been going on in the last while. After all the fun and games and charades and conflict-of-interest problems up to their eyeballs, the Premier was looking for a squeaky-clean new cabinet to change that messy image that he had out there with the public. I don't blame him.

The problem is, it's really much like our forest industry. We've exported our best material, or it's simply not available to us, or it's on this side of the House. That's just what has happened over there. If you compared it to the question of timber for building a cabinet, it would be kind of interesting.

It's a fairly motley crew over there. If you think about it on this coast, what do you get out there in the saltchuck? Well, you get deadheads. We've got a lot of that left over. That's what the Premier had to use in rebuilding his cabinet; he had to throw in a few more deadheads in that construction job. Even on this coast you get a few sinkers, and I suspect there are a few sinkers over there too, and we're watching them go down for the first, second and maybe the third time. In some cases, the material over there is like over mature timber. It's rotten at the core, and in many ways, in terms of the decisions that have made and the activities that have gone on, there are chunks of this cabinet that are rotten to the core. Not much firm wood over there at all; maybe just a little old Elwood, but not much firm wood over there in terms of cabinet construction. It's the kind of material that you've got to work with that no self-respecting carpenter would want to deal with at all.

We've gone through the exercise. Some of the new material in there in Education.... Why, for goodness' sake, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) seemed to forget that he hadn't graduated from grade 12; it had really been only grade 11. The new minister from Omineca was thumping subsidized housing, but he'd forgotten that he was getting the benefits of subsidized housing. The minister of universities over there has been rather interesting. Most of the time he at least says he doesn't know the answer to the question, and it doesn't matter what the question is. He's certainly the most honest of the lot that has arrived on the scene over there, and we look forward to a great future from him.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

But there are problems at the top, too, Mr. Speaker. Most of our cabinet offices are inadequately equipped and staffed. They don't have the talent they need in today's world. It's one thing to be stuck with material that the public has provided in terms of the cabinet ministers themselves, but you haven't really done the job in terms of the backup people and the whole range of talent that is out there, so many of whom have left British Columbia in recent years. Look at the material the Premier brings in, in terms of staff support and that sort of thing. Has the Premier brought in outstanding economists to help British Columbia in these trying times after his decade of wrecking the economy? No, there are no economists on his staff. Are there specialists in international trade in these times when trade is more complex, more difficult than ever? No, there are no specialists in international trade on his staff.

There's none of the kind of technocrats a modern state needs in terms of backing up this rotten cabinet. You might at least have patched it up on that side, but you haven't. There you have the world to choose from — British Columbia and Canada certainly to choose from — but you have not brought to bear the kind of talent that we desperately need in terms of dealing with our problems. All too often you've gotten rid of deputy ministers — or they've left — who were bearing much of the load in terms of real talent and discipline and ability. The Minister of Finance is certainly aware of that one. No, what we've got in terms of the Premier's office, and all too often in the other offices of this government, are a crew that surround themselves with political mercenaries who are only interested in political gain, not at all interested in managing the province of British Columbia. And it shows. Lord, how it shows!

The latest addition to the Premier's office is another one of these mercenaries: a man trained in politics, trained in elections. He's not a manager; not a person who has economics training, who has training in international trade or any of these things. He's a political mercenary, and those are the people who get hired in British Columbia: political guns. Is it any wonder we've been on a downhill slide for a decade in British Columbia, when it's run by a gang of political mercenaries? No wonder at all. Everything over there and in the Premier's office is politics, politics, politics. That's what it's all about.

The provincial economy has been on a downhill slide throughout most of the decade because of that kind of attitude, that kind of staff, and nowhere is it clearer than in the question of coal policy in this province. Nowhere is it clearer. We now have the northeast part of the province awash in red ink — it's on the verge of bankruptcy — and we have the southeast coal economy of this province moving toward the edge as well in the same respect. That's the result of this kind of management with this kind of talent out of this administration, and while this happens the Premier plays politics.

I asked the Premier some responsible questions last week on the issues involving northeast coal and the push by the Japanese to cut both price and volume with respect to northeast coal, despite the thousands of promises we got from the former minister and the Premier that these were firm contracts, that they could not be cut in terms of volume and price, and I got accused by the Premier of affecting the price of coal in Japan. Now the price of tea in China I might be able to affect, but the price of coal in China, I assure you, I can't have any impact on at all. The Premier never dealt with the issue, which is a $3 billion investment sliding over the cliff, close to the point of closure. You never dealt with that. You never dealt with the issue of thousands of jobs on the line. You didn't deal with the fact that the banks aren't going to get paid — that the money isn't there to pay them. You didn't deal with any of that. You didn't deal with the fact that you guys are never going to see your money back on that B.C. Rail line. You didn't deal with the fact that there's been subterfuge going on in the funding of the BCR, and that whole exercise

[ Page 7489 ]

of building a half-billion-dollar rail line. You bet he didn't want to deal with any of that. But we will deal with that, in time.

No, the Premier never dealt with the real issues, because he was briefed by his political mercenaries, who are paid at great public expense, so that he would develop a scenario that would confuse the folks back home, hopefully. That was all they really needed to get re-elected. It wasn't a matter of dealing with the real issues, the fact that there was $3 billion and thousands and thousands of jobs on the line, and the fact that we would probably never get paid back our own money in the whole exercise. No, no, the mercenaries aren't interested in dealing with that.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the major players on the world scene do know what they're doing. The people from Japan, who are currently whipsawing this province in terms of coal price and coal volumes and in terms of these regions of ours, know only too well what they're doing. The Premier with his crew is pure bush-league in his capability to deal with these problems. The offshore people have to be laughing all the way to the bank.

What's happening? You've got $3 billion in the northeast and close to a billion in new money in the southeast in expanded coal production. While we're getting whipsawed around by the Japanese, who are the primary buyers, it's happening on a scale like we've never seen before. Three of the province's six major mines are operating at 50 percent. half production of full contract, and at sharply reduced prices. Three of the six are operating at half speed after applying all this capital and getting in tune and so on.

In the southeast, Westar's Greenhills is now operating at 43 percent less volume in the coming year, 15 percent lower price. Westar's Bulmer pit has been cut in half from four million to two million tonnes, and in price from $83 a tonne to $69 a tonne. Fording, the CPR's company in the Elk Valley, has gone from 3 million tonnes to 1.5 million tonnes — a cut of 50 percent again. The price was cut as well, from $83 to $68 a tonne. Shell's operation, Line Creek, in the southeast part of the province, is now undergoing negotiations with the Japanese as well. They're being thrown into the whipsaw game by the major traders from Japan right now. And Quintette — the biggest problem mine of them all, the jewel of Bill Bennett's ten years, the major mine in northeast coal — was cut back by $8.50 a tonne last year. This was a contract that was never going to change. Prices and volume were only going to go up. Now the big-time Japanese traders say they want a reduction of $21-plus per tonne from the Quintette operation, and they want a cut in volume of 15 to 20 percent.

The source of that is The TEX Report, an industry journal published in Tokyo. They make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, what they're looking for. In their report of March 3 they say: "At the Canadian series of talks, the Japanese mills" — that is, their steel mills — "have demanded such radical markdowns as $21.74 for Quintette." Then they deal with the cut in volume as well.

[4:30]

The TEX Report is published by that group, and it's in Tokyo, Japan. When I raised this with the Premier last week, he thought that it was the Teck Corp. The Premier is not familiar with this kind of material because he surrounds himself with political mercenaries rather than with people that really know the score or would want to get to the root of these problems and solve them.

There's the terrible smell of failure around everything to do with northeast coal. and the Japanese material and documents, the business material that is available, show that more clearly every day. There is a stench of failure around the biggest project of Bill Bennett and his decade in British Columbia.

It's been an incredible, highly professional whipsaw game on the part of the Japanese in dealing with this administration in this last decade. What do they do? They play one country against another in terms of serving their national interest. You can't blame them. but we should surely realize that's what they're up to. So they play Canada against Australia. That's good for starters. Then they play one region against another. serving the Japanese national interest. In British Columbia you create a new coal region in the northeast to play off against the southeast, and get them competing against one another to serve Japanese interests. Then you go further: you play one company off against another to serve Japanese national interests. So we get Denison and Quintette played off against Fording, we get those people played off against the Bullmoose operation, we get them played off against Shell Resources, and on it goes.

In that kind of game, what we're dealing with is Japan Inc. and against that we have bush-league Bill. Bush-league Bill against Japan Inc. Mr. Speaker, we don't have a chance in that kind of game, and that's become abundantly clear in recent weeks. We've got the problem of competing with other countries, of competing within regions, and we've got the problem of companies competing between themselves against Japan Inc. How do the Japanese deal with these questions? Maybe there are some clues for my bush-league friends over there in seeing how the Japanese actually function and operate on the world stage.

What do they do? They've got a ministry of international trade and investment, and that ministry has a raw materials procurement section for analysis and planning; that's within MITI's steel industry bureau. They serve the country's steel cartel, the cartel being a single group of the many players within the steel industry. They set up the system for coal purchase, and this single group in turn takes advantage of outside competing countries, regions and companies. It's a highly sophisticated, coordinated procurement program. It works to limit the ability of the coal supplier to play off one Japanese steel mill against another. That's smart, Mr. Speaker; that's clever; and it does serve their national interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've been doing it for 30 years.

MR. WILLIAMS: You'd think we might have caught up to them, or tried to, but we haven't.

What does this group do, the procurement section? They set long-term contracts to log suppliers into agreements over a period of years. They put in some equity investment to allow a window and a say in the operation of the supplier, and we've certainly seen that with respect to Quintette. Frequently they have customized boat-loading facilities at ports that relate directly to Japanese coal carriers. They have a designated negotiator to represent all of the steel firms in the unit: one negotiator for all of the companies within Japan. There's a sharing of all coal-related technology among the individual steel firms and a blending of all the coal brought into the country, which is then shared proportionately between those mills. There's an interim consensus on what

[ Page 7490 ]

amounts should be purchased, and from which countries, and they designate a trading company to handle the importation of the coal and the day-to-day paperwork.

It's a highly coordinated exercise, with personal contact with the supplier, but all arranged through this very sophisticated hierarchy. The reasons are all too obvious in terms of dealing with us, the country cousins here in British Columbia. One study out of Calgary said: "The study commissioned by Canadian Energy Research Institute concluded the Japanese have encouraged the development of major coal projects, such as the northeast, in order to flood the coal market in hopes that prices would become depressed." They've been incredibly successful. Their major goal in terms of world coal price has indeed been achieved.

So we're dealing with Japan Inc. If we're going to be realistic we must put government, or its equivalent, at the bargaining table too. These companies in British Columbia don't have a chance in terms of future success unless there's some coordinated action on the part of government, and that has not been happening in British Columbia. I would argue.... I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the cutbacks we've seen so far in British Columbia in coal production would not have occurred if there had been coordinated government activity to see that they did not occur. You don't have the capability over there to deal with these players. If you wanted to make sure that we didn't get the cutbacks in British Columbia, you should have been at the bargaining table. We're taking a beating now. There's no way these regions of British Columbia, or these companies within British Columbia, can do the job themselves.

Look at what the president of Quintette, Mr. Kostuik, said just last month:

"You've got to remember that the fundamental precept of the contracts caused a whole bunch of money to be spent, both public and private. It's one thing to reduce the price of coal so the profitability of the equity holders dries up, but to reduce the price so that obligations to the banks are jeopardized is intolerable. To reduce the price to the point where the thing is not viable is not honourable."

I think he is right. But can he deal with that alone when he is dealing with Japan Inc? No, he can't. He doesn't have a chance in the world in dealing with Japan Inc., particularly with you rubes over there who sit on the sidelines. He said that Quintette will be able to meet its debt obligations only if price cuts of $8.50 a tonne, reluctantly swallowed by the company last year, are repealed. He says they can only survive at Quintette if they get the $8.50 that was taken away from them last year. But what does Japan Inc. say? They say no. "We want another $21 a tonne cut off, and we want the volume cut by 20 percent." That's what Japan Inc. Is saying. This nice fellow, this president, this captain of industry is talking about honourable men. I don't blame him.

What he is really saying is that they've been led astray. They didn't understand the way the game is played. He is saying that those contracts aren't what they thought they were. They're not firm, as government members over there said, as the government member who sits in Dawson Creek sulking because he's not a cabinet minister anymore said.

The people in the southeast are in the vice as well because of the whipsawing.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I got here very early.

Three billion is being dissipated and another billion in the southeast. As the man from the southeast says, he has the same problem as the man from the northeast. What does Mr. Morrish, the president of Fording, say? He says it's unreasonable. He said to a coal conference just last fall: "It's unreasonable to expect us to continue to shoulder the entire burden" — i.e., we in the southeast are getting hosed more than the people in the northeast, we're getting hosed more than the Australians, and it isn't fair. He's right: it isn't fair; it isn't right. But he's a small company dealing with Japan Inc. Against them he doesn't have a chance. The end result is that unemployment levels in the southeast are now at 21.4 percent. That compares with Newfoundland at 21.3 percent.

The low-level competence of the Premier's office is the reason we're in trouble in the coalfields of British Columbia — make no bones about that. In many ways we're just a backwater under this administration. The people on the other side play their politics Alabama-style. We can't afford to manage this province of British Columbia Alabama-style. British Columbia has a great reservoir of natural resources. It should be the envy of any other jurisdiction in the world. It's being dissipated on a grand scale under this administration.

We have talent that we could be applying, but we're not. We need more muscle in dealing with Japan Inc., but it's not being applied. We need more intellect in dealing with Japan Inc., but it's not being applied. We simply need more talent. We need a government that cares and works, and we have one that does neither right now under this Premier. We cannot survive as a major trader when we have people like this running the province of British Columbia. We need to be developing new institutions and new methods, and bringing in new talent and new staff to deal with the tough reality of the trading people out there, these new players on the world stage. That should be our number one priority in British Columbia; otherwise we're not going to have secure jobs in the future at all. We're never going to get them when we have a government that surrounds itself with the kinds of people it does. When the number one priority is bringing political mercenaries into the Premier's office, you can be assured that the economy of British Columbia will not be well served.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, last Friday and again on Monday there have been many references to the budget which I personally find quite unparliamentary. Such terms as "deceitful," "fraudulent," and whatever, are totally unacceptable to us. Most distressingly, though, there appears to be some sort of aura of mystery from some quarters that would indicate they don't know what's happening. I don't think there's any question about that. I must reiterate that our government is by no means a mystery government. We have had a plan since 1982.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mercenary is the term, not mystery.

MR. STRACHAN: Mystery.

We have had a plan since 1982, and I think that was abundant to all members. It was recognized....

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: One at a time, please.

[ Page 7491 ]

It was recognized in 1982 by the Premier of our province that we were, as a province that exists largely on the world market, going to be suffering a recession. One of the speakers in the House indicated at that time that there was no question that B.C. was going to suffer because of declining world markets. For those of you who might have forgotten that, that member was Bill King, the former New Democratic member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who said that and agreed with us in the House in 1980, 1981 or 1982.

It was agreed on by thinking people that in fact we had to have a plan. I submit to all of you that we did put a plan in place. It certainly wasn't easy. Tough decisions are never easy to make, but we made them. We went to the people with that plan in mind in 1983, and it appears that no one liked it — except the voters, because we were returned with a larger mandate and continued our plan.

[4:45]

The budget speech of the Finance minister on Thursday indicates that our plan is coming together as it should. It's a continuation of the budget of 1985, and it's putting people to work. It's a very good thing for our province.

I'd like to make a couple of observations today and some quotations from people who are recognized as understanding what budgets are all about. The first happens to be a personal friend of mine, a certified general accountant who, because he's the vice-president of the association, was in the lockup on Thursday and had a far better opportunity than the rest of us to have his views known and the budget analyzed by 3 o'clock on Thursday afternoon. He stated that he welcomed the continued efforts of the provincial government to provide affordable government by controlling public sector spending and by stimulating recovery of the British Columbia economy.

I recognize that there are many other experts in this room; however, I really have to go along with my friend Mr. Punko. First of all, I know him as an honourable man. Secondly, by virtue of his office in the CGA's association in British Columbia, he indicates that the rest of his colleagues think that he knows what he's talking about as well.

He states:

"The decision to reduce the corporate tax rate by a further 2 percent to 14 percent by 1988 recognizes that B.C.'s corporate taxes on investment income have been a bit high, and this reduction should stimulate both economic activity and the flow of capital into British Columbia. Small businessmen should enjoy a spinoff benefit from this move. The province's CGAs also welcomed the continued efforts to keep public expenditures under control and to reduce the province's deficit. The CGAs were also pleased to note that in some important ways...."

MR. LAUK: If he says my taxes are going down, I'll hire him. Can you guarantee it?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, read the budget. It's in there. Look it up when you get home.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: I wish I had said that.

"The CGAs were also pleased to note that in some important ways the budget now contains the flavour of zero-base budgeting inasmuch as the new health improvement fund and fund for excellence in education provide an opportunity for programs to be funded on the basis of merit, reflecting the input of locally elected officials in consultation with private industry, employee associations and other community groups."

This afternoon I've heard criticism after criticism from some quarters indicating that the program-based funding is in fact undemocratic, that it will be done at the cabinet's whim. But if we took at the legislation, if we look at the comments of others, we do see that it has a true flavour of zero-base budgeting and does in fact provide for a democratic input for those programs which should be funded.

MR. LAUK: Is it zero-base budgeting or is it the flavour of zero-base budgeting?

MR. STRACHAN: It's the flavour.

The point, Mr. Member, is that in fact it does recognize that programs have merit, that the local democratically elected officials, whether they be school or hospital board officials, have the right to decide which programs have merit, and we the government are able to respond to that program.

There has been some concern expressed that all the money is flowing to the lower mainland. Madam Speaker, I must argue with that, as a member of the great central interior riding of Prince George South. I only have to look at the developments that have occurred in my part of the world and my part of the province to totally deny any allegations that all the money is flowing south. Certainly there are some expenditures that are being made in the lower mainland due to Expo, due to the success of that show and due to the recognition of the large population base of our province.

But, hon. members and Madam Speaker, I will point out to you that in Prince George we are finishing a Workers' Compensation building, and the Fraser River bridge announced by my colleague, that great Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), is in place — a $25 million project. The College of New Caledonia has an increasing budget, and that, by the way, is an item that flows out of the Excellence in Education fund announced by my colleague the Minister of Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R. Fraser).

I would submit to you that claims that everything is flowing to Vancouver are totally incorrect. In the small community of Valemount, we've seen their small clinic upgraded to a diagnostic and treatment centre. There are many highways projects. Many, many things are happening in my part of the province, and I think on a per capita basis we are probably doing as well as any sector in our province.

It is interesting that the opposition points out that we're not doing anything for unemployment, and yet every project that this government has had on the books since 1978 to in fact decrease unemployment, assist the unemployed in our province, has been disputed, has been denied and has been predicted to be a failure. We only have to look back to B.C. Place, and I remember the furor that went on when I was first elected here in 1979-80. It was going to be a failure without baseball, if it were pink, if it were built upside-down, if it were done any way different than what the government had decided would be a success, but the way we were doing it, it would be unsuccessful.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Mikey, wasn't it?

[ Page 7492 ]

MR. STRACHAN: No, he didn't like another project. B.C. Place has turned out to be an incredible success.

Northeast coa — our mining has recovered substantially in spite of what the previous member has said.

Expo — there was tremendous opposition to that. We can all recall a telegram sent to the International Bureau of Expositions by the current mayor of Vancouver. At that time he was an alderman, and he said he was totally opposed to it and he was joined by 26 members of the Legislative Assembly. He didn't identify who they were, but if one looks at the number, and looks at the statement of votes of 1979, it's not hard to figure out who they were.

What I am saying is that in spite of the fact that we hear continual criticism about this government not doing enough for unemployment in the province, every project, everything we've put in place to in fact decrease unemployment, has sadly been refused by the opposition. They simply can't have it both ways.

In terms of the provincial funds for excellence, I was pleased to hear yesterday that my colleague the Minister of Post-Secondary Education is announcing a $70,000 allocation from the provincial excellence fund for the College of New Caledonia to establish a pilot project in cooperative apprenticeship training. The first program that will be positively affected is the automotive mechanical repair program centred at CNC.

In terms of employment and employment-generated items in the budget, there are many. Members only have to read them. First of all, tax decreases, forgone revenue to large industry and small business — these have a direct effect on the amount of money that can trickle through a firm and be applied to employing more people. The forest renewal money is of substantial benefit to me and of substantial interest to me, representing the central interior riding that I do.

We see that the forest renewal budget has been increased by 21 percent and that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is also going to be funding another $20 million to create jobs in silviculture — weeding, thinning and other projects that are all labour-intensive, all designed to improve our forest base and all designed to reduce unemployment. There is just absolutely no question that this budget is a job creation budget, that it will be successful, and that it's one we can all be proud of.

One thing hasn't been mentioned yet, but I am sure my colleague from Central Fraser Valley, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), will be speaking to the municipal revenue-sharing increase of 9 percent. That's a substantial figure for municipalities all through the province and, of course, specifically for our riding. As we all know, municipal revenue-sharing projects are labour-intensive, they benefit the community, they create jobs and they're of substantial benefit. I don't think there is any question about that.

The funding for student employment is up 50 percent, from $10 million to $15 million. As much as we have been criticized for not accenting youth enough, I think this budget figure speaks for itself, indicating that we are seriously concerned about youth unemployment in our province and are working on it.

I think something we can all take heart in — although the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) didn't seem to indicate that he saw any benefit to him or to the working man on the street — is the underlying fact that this budget has absolutely no tax increases. At a time when governments all across Canada, including the federal government, are increasing taxes, we have taken the position that we can hold the line. In the case of gasoline tax — a tax that really does affect those of us who live in the central interior and do an awful lot of driving in colder weather, when you don't get quite the mileage that you do down here — the Minister of Finance has indicated that the ad valorem tax will still be in place, but only to cause taxes to go down, not up. They are capped at the January level.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: I realize that this is really interesting to my colleagues over there, but I just wonder if I might have a bit more order, Madam Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm listening. Go ahead.

MR. STRACHAN: Okay, thank you. Thanks, Barbara.

MR. REID: More.

MR. STRACHAN: Thank you — more.

There is a reduction in corporation income tax from 16 percent to 14 percent; an elimination of insurance premium tax for insurance companies with head offices in British Columbia; a broadening of the small business venture capital program to include export-oriented service corporations as eligible investments; and, as I indicated, a capping of motor fuel taxes at the January 1, 1986 level — the tax will decline with oil prices in 1986-87. The fuel tax rebate and the supplementary homeowner grant for the handicapped are widened, and the industrial property tax assessment is to be simplified.

In general this is a budget designed, as my friends in the CGA association say, to be affordable, to recognize the economic needs and economic potential of our province — one that will continue to see our province grow.

One of the concerns raised by some of the professional associations and by some members of the media — and, in fact, by the opposition itself — was the fact that maybe the budget does have expectations for growth in our province which are higher than what could be anticipated. However, we should note, as I did in Prince George in the last couple of weeks, that lumber prices are doing extremely well. We're now well over $200 per thousand in random lengths. The pulp market is not as soft as it used to be: we're now at a price of $450 per tonne. All these prices are in American dollars. Without question, Madam Speaker, I see our province really taking off in 1986. Those two commodity indicators tell me that we're already on the right track and that we have a lot of new-found revenue to look forward to. I have no doubt at all that what the Minister of Finance said in the budget with respect to his expectations for revenue are correct. It will carry on and it will serve us well.

The province's economic performance in 1985 was better than in any year since 1981. There has been a lot of criticism that we haven't improved our economic situation. In fact, that's incorrect. Some of the 1985 results include real growth up 3 percent, retail sales up 8.8 percent, real consumer spending up by more than 5 percent, personal income up 6.1 percent, housing starts up 11.1 percent, employment up 2.2 percent, the largest gain since 1981. Those figures cannot be denied, and I think the hon. members should have a look at

[ Page 7493 ]

them. By the way, these quotations are from Thorne Riddell, a well-established accounting firm and people who certainly know and do track what we're doing in the province.

We did have a plan in 1982. We did recognize that because of the international economy and because of our reliance on the international market we would be in tough shape. We took positive plans, and we made it work. Some of them weren't all that easy. It's not an awful lot of fun to make decisions that are tough, but they were acceptable.

So in closing, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your time and your indulgence. I am prepared to support the budget. It's a fine budget. It's exactly what the people wanted, it's exactly what we promised them, and it's a budget that will stand our government in good stead. I will be voting for it.

[5:00]

MR. D'ARCY: I am not persuaded that I can support this budget, unlike the last speaker. You know, since the budget was brought down I have been to my riding; I spent two and a half days there. The comment from virtually everyone has been: "They've got to be dreaming." That's what people think.

I know you can say maybe I just talked to some socialists back home. Well, I didn't; I talked to a lot of people who don't have a political agenda. They don't have a political axe to grind. Their only agenda is to try to make a living, try to stay in business. What they find increasingly is a government that doesn't understand that the economy in the southern interior of this province is not healthy.

No, I know the government cannot be blamed for low commodity prices for pulp, for refined non-ferrous metals and for fertilizer, on the sales of which my area depends. Government can't be blamed for that. But the government can be blamed to a considerable extent for the cost of doing business. The government can be blamed for establishing an atmosphere out there where investors do not want to modernize obsolescent plant facilities. They can be blamed for an atmosphere where investor-owned companies do not want to expand.

Madam Speaker, in my area the most important single raw material input is electricity. It's as important as logs are to a sawmill or pulp mill. It's as important as electricity is to the aluminum-smelting operations in Kitimat. The major employer in my area still is Cominco in Trail, producing ten refined metals for the world market, producing fertilizer, producing high-tech materials, producing engineering services exported world-wide. If you were starting from scratch, Trail would be a terrible place to build a smelter. You simply wouldn't do it. The CPR wouldn't do it. What did you call it, Mr. Member? Japan Inc. wouldn't do it. I don't know whether the member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) would have done it, but most people would not have built a smelter of any sort in the Trail area, because it's far from markets, it has difficult transportation connections, it is difficult to work there topographically, it has difficult soil conditions. But it has one remarkable thing going for it, exactly the same as Alcan has in Kitimat: a plentiful supply of low-cost hydroelectric power. That one advantage, Madam Speaker, more than cancels out all of the other disadvantages. Certainly the original reason for having a smelter in Trail, which was the Rossland mines, has not been significant in terms of ore supply since the post-World War I depression nearly 70 years ago now. The supply of ore is not the key thing, although it certainly is a factor. What's important is the supply of electricity.

The government across the way decided, in its wisdom or lack of it, in the late seventies and early eighties, in the teeth of falling commodity prices, in the teeth of a world-wide recession, to increase the tax on the one key economic input by 1,700 percent. Now we normally think that if the government increases the tax by 10 percent or 20 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent, that's a big tax increase. I don't know whether we can find one that went up by 1,700 percent. Now it is not just tax that affects my area, but it certainly has changed the economics of having a smelting and refining industry there.

We all, me included, at times have perhaps tended to have our view clouded by the fact, as I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said, that if the CPR is involved it's fun to bash them. I guess that's an old sport in western Canada. I somehow think we might have a different view of things if that operation were owned by a different company. We might even have a different view of it if it were owned by a foreign corporation, rather than a Canadian one. We Canadians are rather strange in that regard: we like to save our best kicks for Canadian corporations at times.

I have made pleas to the minister and, to give him credit, he has listened. He hasn't done anything about it, but I have made pleas to the minister, and I appreciate his politeness and understanding. I have talked to the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Brummet) as well, and he has been very polite and very cooperative, but we haven't seen any change. I have spoken also to the Minister of Industry (Hon. Mr. McClelland). And I know that the government is in a discussion with Cominco regarding lead smelting and modernization and silver smelting and modernization of those facilities in Trail. But the fact is, Madame Speaker, that if that modernization does not proceed, it isn't just those operations in Trail which are endangered; the future of lead and silver mining in British Columbia is also endangered.

There is also the question of whether or not the offer of federal assistance can be picked up and realized. By the way, while I am normally opposed to public money going to a large Canadian-owned multinational such as a CPR-owned enterprise, the fact is that the federal offer — and I guess I have to say something nice about the Conservatives here for a moment — is actually a pretty responsible one as far as the taxpayer is concerned, because if the operation is a success and the modernization makes money, it has to be paid back, and if it's not a success due to world commodity prices, the investors and shareholders of Cominco and CPR stand to lose a heck of a lot more than the taxpayer. In the meantime, the mining industry in British Columbia, or that part of the mining industry, gets a lease on life.

I know that there will be apologists for the government who will want to get up and say: "But, you know, the government has to get its revenue somehow, and resource taxes are a good way to get money." Perish the thought that I have to admit this, but there may be some people in my own caucus who might even say that. But, you know, government gets most of its money from people who are employed. When people are unemployed, they don't pay taxes, but the rest of the public who are employed have to pay taxes to maintain them.

I want to talk for a moment — throw out a few numbers about the impact of this tax and of the lowered world commodity prices on my constituency. In Trail right now, in that

[ Page 7494 ]

one resource industry, there are 2,000-plus fewer people working than were working in 1981. They say it's 2,000; I'll use that number because it's a nice round figure, but actually the figure is higher than that. Those jobs have been across the board. Some of them have been hourly paid; some of them have been staff jobs; some of them have been management jobs. But at a conservative estimate of $40,000 annually per job, and I suggest that that's a conservative estimate of the average amount, we can see that $80 million annually in retail spending has gone out of my area, which has a population of 35,000. If you took $80 million annually in retail spending out of downtown Vancouver, it would be noticed. We expected to lose 1,000 of those jobs when the major construction phase of zinc modernization ended, but it was also thought that there would be more modernization taking place. It was also not realized that there would be 1,000 more production jobs lost or transferred out than in fact have been lost.

Now getting back to the government revenue, those operations in Trail on that one electricity tax alone are around $10 million. I would suggest that the loss to the provincial government alone of that payroll decline has been in the neighbourhood of 25 percent of that $80 million, or at least $20 million. It's an old adage, but I think the government is penny wise and pound foolish. If we in this province have any advantage at all in our resource industries against Washington state and the prairie provinces and eastern Canada, it is the fact that we have large amounts of highly developed energy resources, whether they be hydroelectric or natural gas. We should not be using these resources as milk cows for government revenue; we should be using them as feed stocks for industry. We should be using our natural gas and our electricity as levers for successful resource industries.

One of the absurd things, Madam Speaker, about the government's attitude on this is that long ago they recognized this in the forest industry. Long ago it was recognized that stumpage rates should fall when commodity prices in the forest industry fell, and that stumpage prices should rise when commodity prices went up. Way back in the 1940s, when Alcan was proposing an aluminum operation at Kitimat, it was recognized by both Alcan and the provincial government of the day that the tax on the electricity to smelt and refine that aluminum should be tied to the commodity price that that aluminum was getting on world markets. But that has not been recognized.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, it has been recognized in recent years by a succession of Energy ministers in the present government that natural gas prices, when used as an industrial feedstock rather than for pure energy, should also reflect for that particular industry or that particular operation...when used in a petrochemical sense, should be tied to the selling price that those commodities are getting on the world market. But that has never been recognized with the operations in Trail.

All of us, when we were brought up, read statements by politicians and economists that said the problem with Canadian industry is that we're hewers of wood and drawers of water. We're an extractive economy. Our natural resource industries are highly capital-intensive, but not nearly as labour-intensive as refining and manufacturing, as the value added industries. We keep hearing that we should be doing more value-added in our forest industry. We should be taking our raw materials and refining them and manufacturing them; that's where the jobs are. Well, Madam Speaker, whether you like Cominco or not, or the CPR or not, the one outfit that, over the years, has been taking raw materials in the mining industry and smelting and refining them, turning them into fertilizer and refined metals and high-tech materials, has been the Cominco operations in Trail — indeed, net importers of raw materials rather than exporters.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So I ask in the House, as I have asked the ministers privately, that they reconsider the amount of money they're getting from this tax, as against what they're doing to this province's credibility and its economy. Yes, a person could say that I see this in a somewhat parochial sense. But I suggest that that operation is to some degree a microcosm of the resource industries of British Columbia.

Our forest industry — and I have a major pulp and lumber operation in my constituency as well — is sadly obsolescent. One of the reasons is that the owners of the forest industry have not seen fit to put any money in to modernize. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has to change, by hook, by crook, by nudge, by kick in the rear, is that our industries in British Columbia have to be modernized. If they're not modernized, they're going to go down the tube, our employment is going to go down the tube and government revenue is going to go down the tube. I don't care whether it's a Socred or New Democrat or Rhinoceros Party government in British Columbia; if we don't maintain and modernize those resource industries we're going to be a province of Allentowns. I think we should start by lowering energy prices.

[5:15]

Mr. Speaker, the government talked, and the Finance minister spoke in his speech, about the need to increase private investment. Well, those people in Statistics Canada, those relentless publishers of figures on the B.C. and Canadian economy, tell us that since 1981 total investment in British Columbia has declined by 44 percent in real terms. Let's also remember that this is a composite of public and private investment. If we take out the enormous amounts of public investment that the government has been putting into this province since 1981, public investment that has almost entirely been in borrowed U.S. dollars.... In this particular speech I don't want to talk about the desirability, or lack of it, of the government having developed SkyTrain, or having developed Expo, or having developed northeast coal. I'm simply pointing out, for the sake of this debate, that the government did that, and did these projects on borrowed U.S. dollars. Without that infusion of borrowed U.S. dollars, which the province's taxpayers are on the hook for, to pay the mortgages — and, by the way, we could throw in Revelstoke and Cheekye-Dunsmuir, and a few other major capital projects — the rate of total investment would have been even lower than this 44 percent decline that I'm talking about.

In spite of all of that economic stimulation, good old classic Keynesian stimulation, of pumping borrowed dollars into the economy, in 1985 employment levels in British Columbia — the number of people working — were still I percent below what they were in 1981, before the recession. Now I know that in early '85 employment levels have been picking up; I think that's wonderful. But we'll see what 1986 is in total. The fact is that at the end of 1985 we were still I percent less than we were in 1981.

Before anybody says: "Well, times are tough," the fact is that times aren't that tough in the rest of Canada. They aren't

[ Page 7495 ]

that tough below the line. They aren't that tough in western Europe. In the developed, industrial western democracies you have not seen a decline in employment since 1981. Everyone else has recovered. By and large you have not seen a decline in private investment, let alone the 44 percent decline in total investment that we have seen in British Columbia. Before somebody says, "Well, we have resource industries and that's why," other provinces and other jurisdictions also have resource industries, very often the same ones.

The government can't blame labour-management relations. In fact, the minister in his budget address was kind of proud of the fact that we had kind of lost our reputation as a place where you couldn't count on continued production because you never knew when there was going to be a strike or a lockout. That has not been true, especially in the resource industries in recent years in British Columbia. I don't think either labour or management have been happy with the kind of settlements they have been getting from each other, but they've continued to work and they've continued to work together in the last few years in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a few other things in my constituency, particularly in the West Kootenay. I am glad to see the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) is in the chamber, because we have a major problem in Castlegar with pollution from the Westar mill there. Before somebody says, "But that's a pulp mill and we all know they smell," let's remember that the Environment ministry long ago established emission standards for the pulp and paper industry in this province. Long ago the other mills in the interior and the north, of which there are seven, met those emission standards. In fact, most of them meet them in spades. They're not just below the requirements; they're way below. They don't even come close to their permitted amounts of atmospheric pollutants.

The mill in Castlegar competes and sells pulp in the same market, and a large part of last year it was not only out of compliance some of the time to some degree but it was massively out of compliance most of the time. That, by the way, is no reflection on the people who run the operation. They do their best with the mill that was designed in 1958 basically to produce about only two-thirds of what it's expected to, and, indeed, does produce today. But I know you can't get blood out of a stone, and when Westar management of BCRIC say, "We don't have any money; we're not making any money; we can't do any work on that right now," I know they're telling the truth.

But you know, what they want is a ten-year moratorium on doing anything, and I am opposed to that. Just like the federal offer of aid to Cominco for lead and silver smelting modernization, the very moment that the price of pulp goes back up, that company should be required to do what their competitors have been required to do by the government of British Columbia, and that is meet the standard emission standards. They've been getting away, under a variety of ownerships, for a number of years with polluting the atmosphere of Castlegar, and it has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the government borrowing money for ALRT earlier. I'm not saying that's bad, but.... I see the Minister of Finance is back in the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was never out.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm sorry, I know you were hanging on my every word.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance was in municipal politics, and since he's been representing the Saanich area, I know that transit in his constituency has always been a very important thing. I hope he realizes that he has been taxing all parts of the province — maybe only one cent a litre, but it's still a cent a litre on gasoline whether they have transit or not. Approximately one-third of my constituency, Mr. Speaker, does not have transit. While I think it's dandy that the government is extending ALRT to Surrey and borrowing further millions of U.S. dollars to do it, we in Castlegar for our one cent a litre, Mr. Speaker, want one lousy bus. We hope we can get it in 1986.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: We'd like ten buses, actually, but we'll settle for one bus to start with. Mr. Speaker, in reading the letters to the editor in the Vancouver papers, I occasionally find people who complain about the fact that their bus service has been curtailed since SkyTrain began operation. I would just ask that the government take one of those buses that they've parked and send it to the West Kootenay. Maybe they can send us ten.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: You can send that to Nelson. I think they're planning on laying a few tracks out there.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, before I complete my remarks today, while the minister is in such an affable mood, I want to remind him of a couple of things that appeared in my brief to him — when was it; a year and a half, two and a half years ago? — which he responded favourably to at the time, and said were under consideration. I'd like to remind him to keep them under consideration, since they don't appear in his budget.

A very important factor to us in the southern interior, and I suspect it's a factor as well in the South Peace area, is the question of real property taxation on British Columbia Hydro generating projects. We wouldn't feel so bad about this in the West Kootenay if the government's policy was fair throughout, if it was like B.C. Rail or B.C. Ferries, where they don't pay property taxes where they have ferry terminals or tracks period, anywhere. That would be one thing. We wouldn't like that, but the problem that we have with B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, is that when Hydro has a dam in the lower mainland area or on southern Vancouver Island, or if they have a thermal project, or if they have office buildings and facilities, they're taxed exactly as though it were privately owned. Maybe they go through the grants-in-lieu-of taxes thing, but basically they're assessed and taxed exactly as though a private utility owned them.

When B.C. Hydro builds dams in the West Kootenay.... I have two major dams in my riding, Seven Mile and Keenleyside, and right next door in Nelson-Creston we have the Kootenay Canal and the Duncan Dam. Of course,

[ Page 7496 ]

there are the major projects on the upper Columbia in Shuswap-Revelstoke, and there are the major projects on the Peace. Those projects, Mr. Speaker, don't pay property taxes, and it is a real thorn, a real feeling of discrimination, that B.C. Hydro pays taxes on some of its property in some parts of the province, but not in the West Kootenay. I know I've been harping on this for years, but I'm going to continue to harp until a change is made. It's been totally unfair.

The other point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is the question of property tax exemption on improvements put on recreational land. I spoke about this last year; I spoke about it in a brief to the minister. I'm not talking about exemptions on the land values themselves, nor am I getting into what is or is not recreational property. I said at the time that I would leave that to the real property taxation branch to make those definitions. But I do feel that the first $10,000 of assessed value on improvements to recreational land should be exempt for property taxation purposes.

There are a number of people around this province who have very minimal improvements on land — maybe they merely rent or lease a spot; perhaps they simply have a small trailer — who are receiving basically nuisance taxes from the appropriate municipal or regional district authority or provincial government authority for relatively small amounts of money. I suggest that everybody would be a lot happier if the government simply got rid of those nuisance taxes by putting an exemption on the first $10,000. The person who has a $100,000 recreational home will still pay taxes on $90,000 of that assessment, and they'll still pay full taxes on the land.

[5:30]

I remind the minister of those two things, largely, I think, in the question of fairness, especially in the case of the assessment and taxation of B.C. Hydro property on an equal basis throughout the entire province. Let's remember that because of the change this government has made in machinery and equipment taxes, and because of the changes this government has made in the way school taxes are assessed on industrial property, most of those taxes would accrue to the provincial government, especially in rural areas. But certainly for municipal governments such as Castlegar, and certainly for questions such as hospital capital spending and recreational spending.... It would make a tremendous difference to the people of the West Kootenay and, I suspect as well, for the people of the Peace River area if these properties were taxed on an equitable basis around the province.

Which leads me into another question. This may be more of an Estimates question, but I'm going to hope that the minister responds to it at some point in his remarks. Last year, in announcing the phasing-out of the machinery and equipment tax on property, and reaffirming that schedule 1n the budget speech last week, he announced that there were no changes. It has since been suggested to me that for this 1986 taxation year the machinery and equipment tax payable, at least for some of the machinery and equipment taxation in my constituency, is going to be the same as last year. I have not been able to absolutely confirm that, but there is a feeling that what was suggested or noted last year and reaffirmed in the budget speech is in fact not going to take place this year. I notice the minister is not....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that, but we had — perhaps erroneously, Mr. Speaker — an expectation that there would at least be a reduction in 1986 on the machinery and equipment tax. I don't think it's going to make a difference to whether industry stands or falls in Rossland-Trail, but there was that expectation out there, which is not felt at this point, that it's going to come true.

I see the green light is on. I thank you for your patience and attention, and I hope to take my place in this debate later in the session.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In commenting on the budget speech, it's interesting to hear the speakers from the two sides of the House offer their impressions in general on the budget, and then often go into some detail with respect to their own constituencies. It leads you to wonder if things are as opposite as they seem by the comments made over the two sides of the House, or are there other reasons associated with what is being reported to the assembly by the members?

Earlier today the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was speaking about recovery and the lack of recovery in that particular area of the province, and cited certain figures indicating that building permits were down considerably over last year, thus indicating that recovery is not occurring. I think it's important always to ask why. Why is recovery not occurring in certain areas of the province? Is it because of the provincial budget? Is it because of local conditions, or are there other reasons associated with it?

I very quickly called my constituency to ask them about building permits in Richmond, as an example, because the member for Comox had me concerned that construction is down, building permits are down; therefore if it is a provincial problem it must be province-wide. In Richmond, in January and February of 1985, there were 308 permits, for a value of $17 million; in January-February of 1986, 325 permits to a value of $23 million. So there was $6 million of additional construction in the first two months of '86 compared to last year. Now is that because of the provincial budget? I would invite any member of this assembly to come and visit Richmond, particularly the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), to see what development means and how it is accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest single factor that you will find in Richmond and in many Social Credit tidings that you will not find in Vancouver East, Vancouver Centre and some other NDP ridings, is attitude — positive attitude. The municipality of Richmond has the audacity to welcome developers and encourage them to rebuild the downtown core, to add industry upon industry upon industry in Richmond, creating hundreds and thousands of jobs over the last couple of years — tremendous construction in residential, commercial and industrial because the municipality has a positive attitude. It was one of the first municipalities to embrace the provincial programs and say: "Let's get on with rebuilding this economy. Let's not get tied down to some philosophical negativism that says unless some socialist is in the seat it isn't good, it can't work." You go tell the people working in all these construction jobs in Richmond that they're actually unemployed, according to certain statistics. They don't know they're not working, and they've been working for many years.

The municipality of Richmond, in conjunction with various provincial programs, has seized every opportunity it can

[ Page 7497 ]

to provide relief for those who are interested in investing in this province. Richmond is absolutely booming. If every municipality in our province had the same rate of success in development as Richmond has had over the last couple of years, we would be begging people to come to this province to take up the many jobs that are available. Go have a look. See the new industries that are less than two or three years of age and that have hired hundreds and thousands of people, many of them with assistance from programs offered by the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of attitude not only at the municipal level in Richmond. The people in my municipality are positive in their attitude, whether they're ordinary citizens, businessmen, investors, elected members of council or elected members of the school board. I've heard several comments from people about the minister's reference in his budget to school budgets, and many comments from members who have said that the problem is still there and hasn't been properly referred to. I've seen statements made by the president of the School Trustees' Association and others about the various problems they have with their school budgets. No wonder they have problems with their school budgets. If you get the opportunity of examining some of these budgets you wonder: my God, no wonder they're having problems with their budgets. One would suspect they always have had and always will have.

You look at positive attitude, and I cite once again my municipality, my constituency of Richmond. The Richmond School Board, with a positive attitude about providing the best possible level of care and teaching for the students, with the best use of the taxpayers' dollar — the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers of Richmond: what have they done? In 1983 the Richmond school budget was $60,563,000, with a school population of 17,104 students. The budget for '85 was $55 million — $5 million less — with a school population of 17,087; only a difference in numbers of a handful of students. What have they done with respect to class sizes over that period of time? They've reduced their budget by $5 million, but the average class size — elementary and secondary — has remained almost precisely the same. Elementary in '83 was 24.1; in '84, 24.4; in '85, 24.8. Secondary in '83 was 24.5; '84, 24.4; '85, 24.4. They have maintained the size of the classrooms without increase, but they have reduced their budget by over $5 million. I say good for them. I hope they continue finding more and more areas of eliminating unnecessary expenditures.

The school board hired people to investigate why they were not getting value for their dollar, Among the things they discovered were three assistant superintendents, whom everyone admits are not required, at $73,000 a year each. I was advised they had no choice, because they were on five-year contracts. They were on five-year contracts, these three gentlemen, and they had to keep them on contract — until I found out that they weren't five-year contracts; the five-year contracts were being renewed every year. They were never, ever to expire, and they admit they don't need them. That's $220,000 or more. How many teachers could be hired for that amount of money, when they admit they don't need the assistant superintendents? They brought one person into that head office in Richmond who, since he's been there for three years, has taken on the responsibility of nine former employees. He has taken on nine positions, and he says he still needs more work to fill up the week.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is enough money in the budget, without question; it's how it's being used. How is it being used? The Richmond School Board has a positive attitude. They are saying: "The most important way to spend our money is in the classroom." That's where the money should be spent, not in head office, not in administration, not with redundant positions which they admit they don't require. They are doing something about it, but they're maintaining their class size as it has been over the past five or six years.

In addition, they are bringing on more special needs programs than you'll probably see in any school district in B.C. They are not cutting that; they don't play those stupid, cheap games. They are providing first-class education. If you look at the scholastic record of the students at Richmond compared to the provincial average, you will find it to be above the provincial average. They are producing quality education, good students, good results because they're being responsible with the taxpayers' dollar, reducing the budget by $5 million over a period of three years without increasing the size of the classes.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of examples. For those who have been engaged in education but never had the opportunity of looking into the financial system, an example, if I can. An empty school in Richmond, empty because of a shifting population when the air base was closed on Sea Island, an empty building, elementary school. School board in its wisdom decided it would be used for a resource centre, for distribution of videotapes, films and other learning material. Eleven staff members and a supervisor, nine months behind in keeping up to date with the material. They sent someone in to look at it. Now three staff and a supervisor up to date on their filings and the balance of the building rented out to a private school for $50,000 a year. What a turnaround: a turnaround from a building that was not producing, that was behind schedule and was overstaffed by threefold.

Mr. Speaker, take the value, the cost of those and convert that to the classroom where we are told the money is needed, and that's what they're doing. There is so much money in the public school system. There are adequate funds to provide the level of education people agree should be there. But it's a matter of allocating it properly, a matter of allocating those funds within the budget.

[5:45]

The statistics indicate that not only is the school council and the city council in Richmond thinking in a positive way, the business people of the constituency are thinking in a positive way, the citizens are thinking in a positive way. They are saying to outside people: "You are welcome in this community. You are welcome to move, to live, to be schooled. to invest and to work." Richmond today probably has more people from Vancouver shopping in that municipality than Richmond people shop elsewhere, because they've been building, expanding, welcoming in a positive way: clean industry, non-polluting industry, expansion, high tech, almost any area you can imagine.

The people in the licences and permits department of the municipality said: "The old way is no good. The person who comes in here to get a permit or a licence is the customer, the client. It is our job to see that we can eliminate any holdups so they can succeed and get things done." The staff were told by their head man: "When a person comes in here, you act as a consultant. You sit down and show them how to get through

[ Page 7498 ]

the maze of red tape. He's not your enemy. He's the reason you're here." They developed a whole new way. They were able to get permits moved through their paces quite rapidly — not improperly but rapidly. When the office closed, if there was a customer still there and they hadn't quite finished that paperwork, the staff stays to see that it's completed. None of this, "we'll have to come back tomorrow," or "Some other time," or "Here's a mistake. Go out and consult somebody." They get it done. That's why those numbers were up, as I mentioned, from January and February last year, from $17 million in value to $23 million for the same two months this year. They have a positive attitude. They don't believe the negativism the NDP keeps saying is happening in this province.

Richmond's not the only municipality where this is occurring. It's happening in so many areas of our province. I don't know whether it's coincidental, Mr. Speaker, but constituencies where we do see this progress and recovery happen to be represented by Social Credit. Many areas of the province that seem to be in really desperate times seem to be represented by the NDP — according to their own speeches. According to their own speeches there is trouble there. There are certain centres, particularly the metropolitan area of the great city of Vancouver, that have done extremely well over the last few years, thanks to the provincial government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You start looking. Thanks to the provincial government, Vancouver has had its share of growth and construction, not because of the city itself or the NDP — unless you happen to know the right person to contact at city hall to get your permits through, unless you happen to know the right person to get major development through the red tape at city hall. I believe he calls himself now a consultant. That's how you get it through, apparently. In my constituency of Richmond you go to the person in the public office behind the desk — that's who gets it through.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's all right. Calm down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I mention that in the constituency of Richmond, the citizens, the businessmen, the council and the school board are positive, and positive things are happening.

Just one more comment on education. The Vancouver East member laughs. He's probably never been over the Oak Street Bridge, other than to go to the airport. He has never seen what he left behind when he permitted the Howard Wong farm to be converted to the Riverside industrial park. If they gave up 44 acres — that was the price.... "Give us 44 acres. We won't put this land in the agricultural land reserve, because all you're doing is growing vegetables on it. That's almost farming." So the Howard Wong farm became the Riverside industrial park, except for the 44 acres, which is now part of the Riverside.... He has probably never been there since, to see the development that has taken place. That was one of the spots that didn't go in the ALR when they brought it in. But there are literally thousands of people working there now.

Mr. Speaker, attitude is so vitally important. A positive attitude can overcome almost any of these — what would you call them? — mutations that these socialists seem to have with respect to attitude. Let me tell you how they think. We talk about education because it still seems to be a great topic of conversation. One of the things about education that's so great in British Columbia is the idea that we can learn from others. Up in Kamloops, Barney Lukas, Weyerhaeuser Canada's public affairs director, had been invited to an education week. The education week committee had asked him to come up to speak. So I told the newspaper he was going to speak on a Wednesday night on what should be taught. But he told the newspaper not so much what should be taught as who should teach it. He suggested that education should be privatized. Well, the education committee contacted him and said: "We won't require your speech, after all." So they cancelled his talk. Imagine, someone who might have a different point of view was going to speak; and when they found out what he was going to talk about, he was politely told: "We no longer require you as a speaker." That's the kind of openness that is making our education system so effective.

The numbers are there. I wish that each member had the same opportunity of developing the numbers from their school district by some person who is impartial with respect to developing those numbers....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, sure. He could be called a wizard. But he's honest enough to go in. He just happens to be a former teacher, who happens to understand the system and have enough guts to point out where the money is being wasted.

One of the first questions asked was: "Why are we spending $66,000 a year on taxi cabs in Richmond? Why? Why $66,000 a year on cabs? Why do we have two courier trucks with not enough work for one?" Why do we have all these other programs and positions where it seems that there is absolutely nothing being done? Why can't they be used? Why can't that resource — that money — be used for classroom instruction, not for administrative nonsense? It doesn't take too much courage to ask those questions, but it takes courage for someone to tell their supervisors that the money is not being allocated properly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My friend, we have every opportunity to question the expenditure of $60 million in a school district. We have every opportunity to determine if that is the correct amount or whether the people in Richmond should continue to be subjected to average yearly taxes of $607. Is that not enough? Is it too much? Can it be reduced? The people in Richmond want to know. They're not afraid to ask the questions, and the questions are being answered because they took their jobs seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.