[ Page 7499 ]

CONTENTS

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7499

Mr. Hanson –– 7499

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7502

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7505

Mr. Stupich –– 7508

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming my constituency assistant, Shirley Cherwak, to the Legislature, and also a good hard-working New Democrat, Barbara Barrett, and her daughter Jackie, who are here today from Port Alberni.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome the assistant government agent for Prince George, Miss Jeanne Blue.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on the principal motion on the budget address.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate once again the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for the budget that was brought down recently. It's obvious that there is little to criticize in the budget, even though attempts were made to probe those who are known to be critical of the government to offer some comments about the budget.

I think the people of British Columbia were somewhat comforted by the budget. It was a budget that reflected the efforts of the government over the past number of years to try to keep costs under control and to maximize the use of taxpayers' dollars, in sharp contrast to other budgets we've seen released across the country recently.

I think the Minister of Finance has provided a budget that is even-handed, that provides the opportunity of growth without imposing onerous taxes upon the people of British Columbia. I think it is a tribute to the efforts of the government that many of the ideas and concepts which have been introduced over the past number of years seem to be working quite well, along with the cooperation of other levels of government, other organizations, business, industry, labour and citizens in the province who wish to take part in renewal in British Columbia. So I think the budget speech — and the budget itself, for that purpose — is something the people of the province appreciate very much.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last evening of mentioning some specifics to try to point out that while there are differing views with respect to the progress in our province, there are certainly examples of where progress and renewal are occurring in my constituency of Richmond, and there are examples of the development that has taken place and the very positive attitude that the people involved have shown us.

The municipality of Richmond, and the school board as I mentioned last night, have been very, very positive in embracing what programs are available to ensure that we are getting the maximum use of the taxpayers' dollar for services offered to our citizens. Richmond has done an excellent job.

I have one final comment I didn't have the opportunity of mentioning last evening with respect to the Richmond School Board. As you know, the Minister of Education, (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) through the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), is offering an Excellence in Education fund. There are those in the province who have suggested that that fund should be used to supplement the budgets of some school districts that claim they are underfunded.

The Richmond School Board, by way of conversation with myself and others, has developed various programs it believes would be eligible for the Excellence in Education fund. I was speaking with an official the other evening. He said: "We are not going to play a political game; we are going to ask for our share. We've developed a half dozen programs we think would qualify and we are going to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance to say: 'Look, we think this program fits the criteria. Send us the money and we'll put the program in place."'

In contacting other school districts on the lower mainland, the official advised me, several said: "We're not putting any applications forward. We're not going to take part in that program. We'll show them that we're not about to play their game." That's fine. The more who have that attitude, the more money for Richmond's Excellence in Education programs. If other school districts wish not to apply, that's their business. I can tell you that the people in Richmond certainly are going to be applying to see if they qualify for $2 million or $3 million to assist in Excellence in Education. Good for them. That's the type of attitude that's going to see the program develop in this province to give our youngsters a better opportunity to be educated and thus employed once they're out of the school system.

MR. SKELLY: What school boards are reducing them?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, you'll find out, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, because many of the members on those boards are probably members of your party, so I'm sure they'll let you know. You could get the member for Vancouver East to do the research for you. I guarantee it will cost you no more than $80,000.

We have a great deal to look forward to in 1986 in British Columbia, a great deal to look forward to in a positive way. There is no way the opposition is going to stop the development and progress in this province, even though they may deem it to be politically opportunistic to do so. It will not happen. The province is on the move, and certainly certain constituencies are on the move because of a positive attitude. So we'll see what the future brings to our province and our municipalities and our constituencies. But those who are of a positive attitude certainly have the opportunity in British Columbia to engage themselves in what is known as renewal.

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

I am very pleased to offer my congratulations again to the Minister of Finance. I think the budget was very appropriate for the times. I think it is a forward-looking budget, and I look forward to a very exciting 1986 for British Columbia and British Columbians. Thank you.

MR. HANSON: When you hear the government extolling the virtues of these three new special funds, it reminds me of a homebuilder building a tarpaper shack over a 30-year period, and then trying to hang up silk curtains in the tarpaper shack. That's really what we have before us in this province

[ Page 7500 ]

with respect to these three special funds, because the accumulation of neglect in our forests is a tragedy. It is a tragedy deeply understood by all British Columbians that the government that has presided over the demise, the destruction, of our forests, by not properly reforesting, is now setting up — once again prior to a provincial election — a special fund to provide the impression that they care about reforestation and the proper management of our forests.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a joke if it wasn't so tragic. I'm going to be presenting in my talk today the figures to verify and back up the tragedy — the neglect, the total failure — in the management of our forests. The government is attempting to hang onto power by promising that next time, if they're given the mandate by the people, they won't allow this terrible mismanagement of our forest resource to continue. What a sad joke, Mr. Speaker.

The other fund, the Excellence in Education. This term "excellence" came from the L.A. Raiders football team: commitment to excellence. Those people are committed to excellence. But this government is committed only to try to portray themselves to the public as caring about our forests, that they care about education, and that they care about health care. The people of this province know very deeply that this government does not care and has never cared about forests, children, or the proper access to quality health care in this province.

Do you recall the forest and range resource analysis of 1984, Mr. Speaker? It was a very comprehensive assessment of our forest lands and the way they have been neglected in this province. The report clearly stated that our forests were in a very poor state; "that the long-established trend to take the best first has been accelerated." Mr. Speaker, what that means is that the tradition of high-grading our trees, mining, taking the very largest, the very best, from the best sites easiest of access, and not replanting, has been the trend in our province. That trend accelerated over the last five years. The not sufficiently restocked lands of British Columbia actually increased on the medium and good sites, the very best sites of our province for growing trees. The not sufficiently restocked lands increased by 42 percent in the last five years.

What a tragedy, Mr. Speaker! Here we have this deathbed repentance of a government on the eve of a provincial election, sometime in the ensuing months: "Please give us authority again to mismanage the resources of this province." Mr. Speaker, the people of this province don't believe this government anymore. I hear it everywhere I go: they have no credibility. They don't believe them anymore. They don't want this government anymore. They want a government that cares about our forests and will be sincere about it every day, not just prior to a provincial election.

The number of seedlings in this province has increased over the last few years. But when you understand that every year in the harvesting of our forests the number of seedlings planted falls short by about one-third, that we fall back every year in the amount of land that is adequately restocked, you understand that the silvicultural practices of the province are grossly insufficient. It's actually criminal. When you look at the different regions of this province, at how overcutting and insufficient restocking has occurred by region, you find that the person now in charge of the forests of this province, who has recently come from wreaking havoc in our public instruction system — that minister who for seven years has represented the Prince George region, which is by far the worst for insufficient restocking.... Over the last five years the amount of land cut and not restocked increased by 116 percent in the area represented by the present Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Can you believe what that forebodes for the future?

Even basic silvicultural activities, on which the 1984 forest range and resource analysis report focused.... They said that the required standard has never been maintained, even to meet our annual allowable cut. Every year the annual allowable cut is established, and restocking has never, under the 30 years of Social Credit, met the annual allowable cut.

The total of not sufficiently restocked land has increased from 1.9 million hectares to 3.6 million hectares — an 85 percent increase between 1979 and 1984. The report states that after factoring — that is, estimating how much of that might actually be stocked upon field inspection — not sufficiently restocked land has increased from I million hectares to 1.6 million hectares — a 50 percent increase in five years.

The more a person reads this report, and understands the importance of our forests to our economy and to the people of British Columbia, it makes a person weep to assess and understand the accumulated neglect that has occurred around our forests. Focusing only on the good and medium site land within that total, it has increased from 0 –– 8 million hectares to 1.2 million — a 42 percent increase. That's what I was referring to, that on the good and medium sites of this province, there was a 42 percent increase in the insufficiently stocked lands in the last five years.

When you look at this not sufficiently restocked land by forest region, the most dramatic increase is in the Prince George forest district. I hope the Prince George Citizen will cover some of my speech, because it should know that the Forests minister, who has been recently appointed to that position, has sat idly by over the last five years and watched that region which he represents . the 116 percent increase from 292,000 hectares of good and medium site land in 1979 to 632,700 hectares in 1984. What a shame! What a tragedy! That's why the people of this province don't believe you anymore. You can set up funds all you like. You can glossy them up. You can cover your tarpaper shacks and have silk curtains, but the people of this province don't believe you anymore when you say you're going to manage the forest lands of this province.

They didn't trust you when you set up the forest and range resource fund with $142 million in 1980 and $120 million for 1981. The next year it was gone. The remaining $83 million had been transferred to general revenue to deal with the deficit. It was supposed to be a five-year, $1.4 billion forest management program. It lasted two years. We were robbed once; we won't be robbed again, because the people are going to change in this province. They're going to throw out this government that doesn't care about our forests. It doesn't care about our public education system and the future of our young people, and it doesn't really care about proper access to quality health care in this province.

So 14 percent of our potentially productive forest land is not sufficiently restocked. This increase amounts to a loss of 19,000 hectares per year. Between 1979 and 1983, 80,000 hectares of forest land, scheduled for planting, were not replanted. On those sites which were planted, only 50 percent were planted within the recommended period after logging. Now we have that minister in Prince George.... I pointed out the disgrace in forest management in his forest district. We really now have the fox in with the chickens. A person

[ Page 7501 ]

who has come from Education — his record in the public instruction system of this province is very warm and fresh in the minds and hearts of the people of this province. They know very clearly that what he did in education....

It's almost like bringing in the exterminator when you have a situation where our forests have been so poorly managed. Now we bring in a minister with his record of poor advocacy in his region, and a poor and terrible record in the education system. At least Bill Vander Zalm, when he wreaked havoc in the public instruction system in this province, had the good sense to quit, and I think the previous Minister of Education should do the honourable thing and resign on the basis of his record in education.

Let me just run through the numbers again on the insufficiently restocked regions. Prince George district, good and medium sites only, 1984: 632,700 hectares. Ranking second is the Nelson forest district, with 156,800 hectares not sufficiently restocked; third, Kamloops district, 141,000 hectares not sufficiently restocked; fourth, Prince Rupert district, 120,300 hectares not sufficiently restocked; fifth, Cariboo district, 100,800 hectares not sufficiently restocked; finally, the Vancouver forest district, 77,600 hectares.

What a disgrace! What an accumulation of neglect over so many years and an acceleration of neglect in the last five, increasing by 42 percent on the good and medium sites from 1979 to 1984! And this government has the audacity to come before the people of the province, to come to this House in a budget and say they're going to mend their ways. All of a sudden they've got a new-found commitment to forestry, a new-found commitment to restocking our forests to intensive silviculture and so on. What a joke! What a tragedy! What a terrible tragedy for our future and for our children!

When they didn't restock the lands, we lost employment as a result. We've lost employment in the future, because as the trees aren't growing and we have what is called the fall down effect, the trees won't be there for the employment of our children and our grandchildren. That's what intensive forestry is all about, Mr. Speaker. It's not just getting top dollar today; it's making sure that the resource is there for our children, and for their children. That's the way it was intended in this blessed province. We're blessed with resources; they've been neglected, and an accumulation of neglect has resulted in a loss of employment and future possibilities for succeeding generations. That is the tragedy.

We hear now about an Excellence in Education fund. That, again, is analogous to our forests. This government doesn't have a commitment to quality education. Look at the statistics, at the numbers. You don't have to decide that it's me, the first member for Victoria, on his feet condemning the government. The numbers condemn the government. Next to Newfoundland, our children have the poorest chance of going to university of any province in Canada. What a disgrace! It's called the participation rate. The children who enter grade one and go to university — we have the fewest, next to Newfoundland, in all of Canada. Does that indicate any commitment to education in the past, any approach concerned with the career paths of our young people? Absolutely not.

It was disclosed the other day by my colleague for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) that this province has the poorest funding for textbooks in all of Canada. Can you imagine anything more basic in the public education system than textbooks for classroom instruction? Is there anything in the system more fundamental than that? Here we have them talking about funding excellence in education. Nobody believes them. Anyone working in the educational system, whether a teacher's aide, a parent committed to helping in the school system or the people giving their life and skills and talents teaching in the various public school systems from K to post-doctoral, knows that this government doesn't have a commitment to education. They know on a day-to-day basis, and the public knows it as well.

This government has withdrawn resources from the educational system for the projects that they felt would be more politically desirable. They didn't see and don't understand that our economy is largely linked to the quality of our education system. When a university system is inadequately funded, as ours is here in the province of British Columbia, we lose employment. We lose the skills and abilities of our talented young people. They go away when they are not valued and when they're berated and criticized and attacked by the government and humiliated in their chosen field.

[10:30]

You know, Mr. Speaker, they leave. There aren't opportunities here. We've heard many times in this House, during the throne speech and the budget debate from this side of the House, that we're losing our talent and that the brain drain of the fifties and sixties that was so apparent in our country and particularly in British Columbia is back. We're losing teachers. We're losing engineers. We're losing physicians. We're losing our skilled and trained people because this province, through the government, sends the signals every day that they are political targets. They're not valued citizens who are giving their all to an educational system. They are targets. They are people who are used to divide and conquer the electorate.

Mr. Speaker, it's not going to work anymore, because the people of this province are on to this government. They don't believe them anymore. They want change. They don't believe they care about the forests. They don't believe they care about the public education system in this province.

We have a poor record in allowing people in rural ridings access to university education. It's a very poor participation rate coming from the regions of the province. So do we have a poor participation rate overall, compared with other provinces, even though a lot of the people of this province don't realize that the government of British Columbia does not put funds into the university system in this province. They take the transfer payments from the federal government, they take the fees from the students, they put them together, and that is the university funding system in this province. The provincial government does not provide funding for higher education in this province. What a tragedy, Mr. Speaker! What a disgrace! Commitment to excellence — baloney. There's no commitment to excellence in education in this province and never has been under Social Credit.

Mr. Speaker, we find that the government doesn't provide the textbooks and they don't provide adequate bursary and loan situations, so our students have to go into debt to get a bachelor of arts or a bachelor of science degree. Unless a person is coming from a family where their parents have some considerable wealth, that student, if the person has to rely on loans, can run up debts of $20,000 to get a university degree, with no prospect of employment.

That's why we lose our young people to other provinces and have people going abroad where they are appreciated. I have heard of examples of people going to Australia because

[ Page 7502 ]

their skills are appreciated. They're going to California because their skills are appreciated, and they're going to Manitoba and Ontario because their experience and their commitment to working for other people and for building a humane society is appreciated in other areas.

Another special fund to be allocated on a political basis is in the health care area — can you imagine? — rather than providing the funds into the line ministries of health so that they can be administered on the basis of need, so that communities that require nurses, paramedical staff, air ambulances, CAT scanners and these kinds of medical attention and facilities.... Those funds should be apportioned on the basis of need and so on throughout the province in a way that is fair and not politically biased.

Here we have now funds to be allocated by the cabinet, separate and apart from the accountability to this House, in budget estimates, funds that will be allocated on a political basis. The headlines in the newspapers.... They were quick to recognize it. Pork-barrels; three pork-barrels: one for forests, one for education, one for health. Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough. It doesn't fly anymore. The people of this province are on to this government.

Isn't it time for change? The people of this province are saying it every day. "If this government doesn't change, we're leaving." That's what they're saying. "We're going to take our skills and ability elsewhere, because we're not appreciated by this government, and we're not going to spend our whole lives being attacked by the government. We're going to give our children a chance." When you live in a province where the resources are mismanaged this way so that we're not going to be able to have the resource wealth in the future to provide the educational opportunities and the job opportunities for our young people, and when we have a government that continually underfunds education and continually uses the people that work in the educational system as political targets, these people are saying: "We're going to go away." Mr. Speaker, that is a message that I want to see changed. I want to say to our people: "There is a place here for you, and you will be appreciated, and we'll work together to build the kind of society with a broad, real consensus, a society for the future that we'd all be proud of, and one that we would invite people from other regions of this country to come and assist us to help us build the kind of society that we envision on this side of the House."

Mr. Speaker, I've covered the forest fund and the education fund. It's clear, and I know very clearly from my own constituency, what the elective surgery waiting-lists for hospitals are and the number of extended-care beds that are required to free up acute-care beds in this city alone. I know the situation is the same in many areas of this province. People are waiting desperately for surgery. It may not be life threatening. They may not be at risk today or tomorrow, but what often happens is that the kind of illnesses people on the elective surgery lists have may keep them from returning to work. They aggravate an already serious condition. They aggravate their condition so that it may be life threatening in the future.

That puts the physicians of this province in a very difficult position. They often liken it to a kind of roulette that they're having to play with their patients. They're having to make a subjective evaluation of whether one person is more at risk than another. There is only one bed, and they have to make that determination of whether that person who needs a bypass or some kind of operation to get them back at work is the most serious. Mr. Speaker, for them then to put health funds into a special fund and claim somehow their commitment to quality or excellence in delivery of health care is a mockery of this House.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want at this point to move a motion that's standing on the order paper in my name, seconded by my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). The motion reads: "That the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.... I move that that be amended by adding the following: "But this House regrets that in the opinion of the House the Hon. Minister of Finance, by setting up special funds which can be allocated on a political basis rather than assuring adequate operating budgets for ministries, is jeopardizing the management of natural resources and the provision of quality services and undermining the employment and income security of ordinary British Columbians."

Mr. Speaker, I so move, seconded by the member for North Island.

In conclusion I'd just like to say that the people of this province — the taxpayers and the working people of this province — are fed up with the abusive power of this government, a government that no longer understands the difference between the political party and the rights and obligations of a political party and the rights and obligations of a government to its citizens. This is a government that expropriates legitimate taxpayer functions, such as legitimate information services to the people, legitimate public services, the delivery of health, the delivery of education, social services of all types and the management of our resources. This government has an obligation to all citizens of the province to be above partisan politics, to govern for all of the people. Mr. Speaker, this government has run its course. It has abused power. It has taken unto itself functions of government where they have advertised politically with tax money where that would more appropriately be paid for by a political party and not the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Speaker, this government has run its course, and the people of this province everywhere we go are saying: "It's time for a change, and if the change doesn't come, we're leaving." We don't want that to happen, Mr. Speaker. We're going to bring that change about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amending motion is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if we had in our public galleries visitors from parts of the world other than British Columbia, they might wonder about what kind of province it is that those of us in this House represent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The two views of British Columbia that are presented in this Legislature are so fundamentally different one from the other that it would be difficult, I'm sure, for someone not familiar with the province to understand what in fact was the truth out there.

There is some truth on both sides of the issue. There is a British Columbia that the Social Credit members speak about. I was in Vancouver on the weekend and have been in Vancouver on previous occasions over the last few months,

[ Page 7503 ]

and I see glimpses of that other world. Coming from Vancouver Island, driving up and down the Island Trail, as I do every week almost now, I'm struck when I go to Vancouver by the number of Mercedes-Benzes, the number of Porches, the number of BMWs, the number of Cadillacs, the incredible number of cars on those roads that are worth $30,000 and up. There is a British Columbia out there that is described by members of the Social Credit Party. It does exist. I see the evidence of it when I go to Vancouver.

But I see something else as well. I see a poverty that is deeper than any poverty I have ever seen or witnessed in my short lifetime in this province. It may well have been worse in the thirties, I don't know, but it certainly has not been worse in the two or three decades that I've been observing political life in this province. Never in the history of this province has the saying that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer been more true than it is today. That's true in a way that you can visualize, you can see for yourself, when you visit the lower mainland. Those of us who stay in our constituencies, if we represent Vancouver Island ridings, don't see it nearly as much. The extremes of poverty and wealth are not as clear. They certainly are in the lower mainland. I think that partly, perhaps, accounts for the description of two different British Columbias that you hear about listening to debates in this Legislature.

Some of us believe that the role of politicians is to help those in our society who are unable to help themselves enough and who need the assistance of the collective, the group, the society. That's why we look at that side of our society where poverty is endemic, where people are literally going hungry, where kids are going to school malnourished, because our responsibility surely as politicians — or why else are we in the business? — is to look at that side of life. The people in Vancouver who drive the $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 cars do not need to be represented in this Legislature in terms of government activity or government action. But unfortunately, at this state in our history, still a majority of the members of this House see it as their purpose to represent that side of our society and not the other side, which unfortunately is growing in leaps and bounds in this province over the last few years.

[10:45]

I come from a region that has been badly dealt with by this government. When I look at the unemployment statistics, as I do every month when they are produced by Stats Canada, I'm appalled by the growing disparities, not only as I've described in terms of between groups of people but also between regions in this province. In the East and West Kootenays the unemployment rate in February 1986 — a month ago - was well over 20 percent. In the East Kootenays it is higher than in Newfoundland. In the Okanagan and the southern interior, 17 percent are unemployed. That's the second worst rate in Canada. Only Newfoundland has a worse rate than the Okanagan and the southern interior. If you look at the Kamloops and central interior area — 15.1 percent, fourth worst in Canada. Then look at Vancouver Island — 16.2 percent, almost tied with New Brunswick for the second worst unemployment rate in this country. The Prince George and northern interior area has an unemployment rate of 16.3 percent, virtually the same as the Vancouver Island area and the same as New Brunswick — the second worst in the country. Then you look at Victoria, as a part of Vancouver Island, and you discover it too has an unemployment rate of over 16 percent.

Vancouver has an unemployment rate of 11 percent. We say to ourselves, wow, Vancouver's doing really well. And they are, in comparative terms in British Columbia, but they're still higher than the national average for unemployment. Those of us who make our trips to Vancouver occasionally are astounded and astonished by the apparent life and activity, and what seems almost like a boom when you come from Vancouver Island. Yet their unemployment rate is higher than the national average.

What this budget has not done is to deal with the regional disparities in this province. It has not devised a strategy for unemployment in the Kootenays. It has not said: here are some things that can be done in an economic way to assist the economy of Vancouver Island, or any other region in this province. What is there in this budget for Kamloops? Nothing, Mr. Speaker. The only thing you can find in this budget is something for the Social Credit re-election campaign. What is that? It's these so-called special funds, which I think warrant a bit more time and attention in this debate.

Just a brief history of special funds. W.A.C. Bennett established special funds in order to hide a surplus, in effect — not to hide it, but to keep the surplus in the accounts in various funds in order not to reduce taxes. He didn't need all the money that was collected, so he established special funds and put the money in those areas.

We as an NDP government had surpluses every year; we continued that practice, and did much of the same. So special funds were designed as buckets to put surpluses in. In 1976 Evan Wolfe, as Finance minister, decided to expropriate some of those special funds and put them into current revenue; and we had legislation in '76 to do that. Then in 1982 we had — we thought; we, were told by the current Minister of Finance — a balanced budget. But in that same year we had a special fund under the Health Cost Stabilization Act — $77.8 million, if my memory is correct — health care costs, which was to be above and beyond the health care budget; which was to be above and beyond the budget of the province of British Columbia; which was a way to hide a deficit. So special funds went from hiding surpluses to, in 1982, beginning to hide deficits.

Now that we have no surpluses to hide, and the deficits are so big that it's impossible to hide them, we have a new purpose for special funds. We have three of them established so that the proper debate in the Legislature about where these funds are to be expended, as is common in the British parliamentary system, cannot take place.

I thought it might be useful to see how the money was spent in 1982 — the $77.8 million in health care costs. So I checked the public accounts for '82, and I went into '83. The money showed up as a one-shot expenditure: $77.8 million, under health cost stabilization. No indication of whether it went into medicare or into hospitals, or into any other part of the health care budget — a one-shot item. I don't know to this day, nor does anybody else, even the people in this House who voted that money, where it was spent. That's not the appropriate way to budget in the British parliamentary system; yet we're doing it again, and we're doing it in even grander style with the budget under debate today.

Mr. Speaker, any quick analysis of the budget will tell you that the spending items in various areas of each of those three ministries have been reduced in order to provide additional money for a special fund. It's quite clear. In forestry it's just a sham, because they don't intend to spend that money in any event. But in health and in education it's clear: they've

[ Page 7504 ]

reduced budgetary items in medicare and in a number of other areas in each of those ministries and have established a special fund with that money, so that this House will not vote where that money is to be spent, but politicians privately, inside cabinet, will make the decision. No wonder the Vancouver Province headlined the budget: "Pork Barrel." What else is it? It's pork-barrel and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just New Democrats who question this whole thing. I think it's important to read into the record two paragraphs of the Times-Colonist editorial of Friday, March 21:

"The most imaginative conjuring in the budget concerns the 'special' funds for forestry, health and education. The government will put $20 million into a special forest stand management fund. Since when is managing forest stands a temporary need? That funding belongs in the basic forestry budget.

"And the three-year $720 million health improvement fund displays a curious approach. Curtis said the ministry will consult with the health care community 'to solicit proposals and establish priorities for the use of this fund.' Doesn't it make more sense to establish needs, then determine which of those the province can afford to meet?"

Of course it makes more sense. But, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't suit the political need to be able to buy votes, in order to try to buy the next election. That's what these special funds are all about.

There's another purpose to these special funds, one that hasn't received much attention to date: they are designed to further subvert the collective bargaining system in this province. They are designed to say to people at the bargaining table: "The basic budgets in all of these programs have been reduced. There's no money for anything." Yet there is money set aside in these special funds. But that's obviously and clearly not available at the bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, in a free collective bargaining society one does not bargain by saying: "Here it is. That's all there is. Take it or leave it." That's not bargaining. The way in which the government has conducted its set of bargainings in various areas, both directly and indirectly, in this province in the last few months, particularly in the last six months, is clearly, in my view, unfair bargaining and bargaining without good faith. I think that the Labour Relations Board, given an opportunity, would treat that quite seriously, and it may well come up with the same conclusions.

I want to talk a little about the Compensation Stabilization Act and Ed Peck's organization. First of all, in my view, it was established because the government did not feel confident enough in its own ability to go to a bargaining table and bargain toughly, so it felt it needed to establish a system which introduced compulsion into collective bargaining. It didn't believe it could do it, so it set up an agency. What were the stated objectives of this agency? I think they can be summarized in four points: (1) to maintain public services, as stated by the minister in 1982; (2) to protect the public interest; (3) to encourage job security for public workers; and (4) to maintain compensation at reasonable levels. Those were the stated aims of the government in introducing the CSP.

Let's have a look at each of those aims. Maintaining public services - clearly not so. Public services have deteriorated around this province. Thousands of jobs have been wiped out. People who want to deal with the lands branch now can't go to Courtenay in my riding; they have to go to Victoria. The same kind of pattern occurs all over this province. Local government services have been eliminated; they have been centralized and reduced. Yet a claim of the government was that we would avoid losing public services if the CSP were passed and put into place in British Columbia.

The CSP was designed to protect the public service — not so, obviously. Thousands upon thousands of jobs have been lost. The morale in public sector places of work is lower today than it has ever been in the history of this province. That in itself reduces levels of service, not to speak of not having enough workers to do the services that are required. Isn't it obvious why we have everything from more poaching, on the one hand, to more child abuse, on the other? Yet the government said it would introduce this program and, by doing so, protect public interests.

The third stated goal was to provide job security. Yet within a year of introducing the CSP a bill was put before this House which contained a clause that public sector workers could be fired without cause. Thousands upon thousands of public sector workers across this province have in fact been fired or let go, despite the promise of job security if this House would vote yes to the Compensation Stabilization Act in 1982.

Mr. Speaker, the fourth claim was that compensation would be kept at a reasonable level. The ILO had some interesting comments to make on this whole subject, and I'm going to spend a couple of minutes talking about that as well. In its reply to the charges filed with the ILO, the government stated as follows: "As regards the allegation that the wage controls have prevented public sector wage increases from keeping pace with the cost of living, the government states that this is correct, but points out that employees covered by the program have not fared worse than private sector employees." It then points out that the resulting private and public wage patterns have been exactly the same.

[11:00]

Interestingly, this was before last year's statistics were prepared. Last year private sector wage increases in British Columbia were considerably less than public sector wage increases. It's interesting that where free collective bargaining is in place, where the market is allowed to determine the price of the product — in this case, work for service — where the market is allowed to have some free rein — supposedly the goal of people in Social Credit — where the market has control, the wage benefits gained were less than they were under this CSR

The problem is that when you have compulsion in a system like the CSP, when you have compulsion in bargaining, you end up with all kinds of anomalies, and you end up with all kinds of tensions and anger. It's clear from all kinds of studies that have been done recently that wage settlements respond in the private sector as they do in the public sector. They respond to market forces if they're free and unhindered by compulsions such as those included in CSR When you have a CSP you get distortions. You get some increases that are higher than the average and some that are lower. You get all kinds of distortions in the system, and when you get distortions in the system, you get people receiving incomes that they feel are improper, compared to everybody else, and they know that they've had no say whatsoever in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record what the International Labour Organization recommended about this particular program. A bit of background about the ILO is

[ Page 7505 ]

important. Many years ago Canada signed international conventions, promising to adhere to certain standards vis-à-vis free collective bargaining. Those conventions are not quite law, but morally they are — it's international law. And what does this United Nations organization say about the compensation stabilization program? Here are three of their recommendations:

"1. ...the principle that the requirement of prior approval of collective agreements before they can come into force is not in conformity with the principles of voluntary collective bargaining laid down in convention No. 98.

"2. The compensation stabilization program, under which compensation plans must be submitted for review to a government-appointed commissioner, is contrary to the principle of voluntary collective bargaining.

"3. The committee of the ILO expresses the hope that the government will at an early date take appropriate steps, in light of the principle stated above, to restore free collective bargaining between the parties and to remove the limitations currently imposed on this by the program."

So we have the International Labour Organization, a UN agency based in Geneva, in which Canada is a full and participating member, having signed the conventions — in other words, the laws.... We have this international agency condemning the province of British Columbia for being in violation of the conventions that Canada has signed.

Mr. Speaker, what should we do in respect of bargaining in the public sector? Clearly the first thing is to abide by the recommendation of the United Nations and restore free collective bargaining.

If there is some concern about the opportunity the government has to bargain properly, then let's take a leaf out of the book of the Ontario Conservative government and establish something similar to what was established in Ontario. What they did there in the education field was allow full, free collective bargaining and establish what they call an Education Relations Commission. That commission is appointed by people representing both public sector employers and employees in the education field, and it is chaired by a mutually acceptable chairperson. That agency is designed to collect and provide the economic data required to assist the parties in the collective bargaining process, so that you don't have claim versus counter-claim based on differing information — you can bargain based on information that is agreed to by both parties. That takes a lot of the heat and fire out of the whole process of collective bargaining to begin with.

That agency not only provides that kind of information to the parties, but it also has in its ranks people who are expert in mediation, people who can assist the parties in dispute resolution. What have been the results in Ontario? No labour relations turmoil in the education field and no excessive wage increases — increases which reflect the market forces at play, and which reflect on the private sector as well.

Why can't we do something like that in this province? Why can't we in British Columbia live up to our international obligations? Why can't we in British Columbia design a system that people can participate in and feel happy with, so that we don't have the kind of anger and distrust and depression and lack of morale that is so widespread now in our public sector?

That would be an admirable goal of any government. And I can assure you, given, an opportunity in the next months or year or so, when we are in office, we'll have an opportunity to restore the kind of harmony and cooperation and partnership that they talk about, but that we want to do.

In conclusion, I've seconded this motion as moved by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that in my mind the budget does nothing whatsoever to deal with the regional disparities in this province. The budget makes no attempt to even identify the regional disparities, much less to identify programs to deal with those disparities.

The second reason — and I've talked about it at some length — is that the budget establishes a pork-barrel like we've never had before in British Columbia. Funds will be allocated by cabinet in secrecy to those people it feels can best use the money; the only goal clearly in mind is an attempt to buy the next election. For that reason alone, honourable members should vote against the budget because Parliament has been thrown right out of its fundamental responsibility of determining where money is raised and how it is spent. That is the responsibility of elected members through parliament, through a legislature, and in this budget that right is being denied to elected members because of the secret decision-making about where that money is going to be spent. That is not proper in a parliamentary system.

If the government was indeed serious about attempting to restore British Columbia's economy, rather than being serious only about getting re-elected, it would attempt some reconciliation with the disaffected people in this province. It has not done that. It continues to bring in laws, bring in budgets, and to govern in a style that deliberately sets people apart one from the other; deliberately sets regions apart one from the other; deliberately encourages workers to engage in confrontational-style negotiations. No alternative is left.

When the BCGEU-B.C. government bargaining began earlier this year, 1 watched from a distance and talked to people on both sides, and discovered that they were operating under the principle set out in the book Getting to Yes. I thought: "We've turned a comer in labour relations in British Columbia; finally some bargaining that's going to be sensible, cooperative, and as a result probably lead to an amicable and early resolution of the issues outstanding." But the people bargaining on behalf of the government and the people bargaining on behalf of the government workers didn't know that the government would bargain by edict; by saying: "Here it is. Take it or leave it."

That whole experiment, which I though was useful, has turned out to be an absolute waste of time, because the government itself had no intention of bargaining in good faith. Is it any wonder that divisions exist in our society? Is it any wonder — to come back to the point I started with — that there are different views of what this province is all about? We have a government that has lost touch. I'm reminded very much of this government when I hear excerpts from Donald Johnston's book describing Trudeau in his last term. This government, like Trudeau's government, is out of touch with the people of this province.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I understood there was a list, and that the honourable thing would be done and they would acknowledge somebody from this side of the house. I was so enamoured with what the member for North Island was talking about that....

[ Page 7506 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you're prepared to enter the debate on the amendment. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Obviously I rise to speak against the amendment.

I'd like to talk about a number of things. Some mention was made by the member for North Island with respect to regional disparities. Much ado has been made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to a colleague on this side of the House, with respect to assisting areas where in fact the polls within a riding move against a government member. That just is not the case, and I'd like to refer to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). If she would just listen to this particular point, then fine, I'll make a believer out of her.

The district municipality of Mackenzie, in two consecutive elections, has not delivered the poll to me as the MLA for Prince George North. I admit that in the first election there was quite a spread. In the second election, in 1983, we narrowed it. But I'll tell you why it was narrowed: because we did something for the people of Mackenzie, a great deal. Now we look in the budget, and I see that there's money for a new hospital in Mackenzie. Do you know, the hospital in Mackenzie right now consists of 25 portable units which have been in place since the district municipality of Mackenzie was first incorporated? I remember there was a member from Fort George, when the members opposite were in government from '72 to '75, and that member didn't seem to deliver. Even though that poll wasn't delivered to me, I never forgot about those people. They've got a new swimming pool, a new library, a Kin centre. The police building, which they've been after for years, is just about completed in construction. It includes a courthouse. As a matter of fact, the architect's rendering for the new hospital was delivered to me last week. Now I just want to raise the point that here is a particular part of my riding, which poll I did not win, and yet we delivered on all of these items. I don't understand where the criticism is coming from.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Those things have all come over a period of almost seven years. As a matter of fact, I've got another surprise for them, eventually, but it takes a while before these things all come to pass.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Now look, I can't give you a Smokey Bear speech, Mr. Speaker; I haven't been in this portfolio long enough.

Reference was made by the member for Victoria — I'm not sure, first or second — to the editorial in the Victoria Times-Colonist.

[11:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: The only newspaper left.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I think we all receive a number of comments by the editors throughout the province from time to time — on both sides of the House. I don't think that we can ever remember.... The Prince George Citizen referred to the budget as being a "reasoned budget." I was pleased to hear that.

And then the member for Victoria made some mention about the forest industry. Well, just recently, as a matter of fact during the second week of March, a document was released by the Ministry of Forests. The date of the press release was March 11. The document is entitled "Prince George TSA Options Report." The byline in the newspaper, the author of which happened to be the campaign manager for the New Democratic Party in 1979 — and I might tell you, probably one of the most knowledgeable reporters in the forest industry in the province.... I certainly concede that to him. He knows a great deal about it and is a most professional reporter. But I want you to know....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: There's not enough competition.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think there's lots of competition.

I want you to recognize the byline. The forest report, the one to which I referred — the Prince George TSA — says as follows: "The forest report bodes well for the industry." The author of that report happens to be a gentleman by the name of Ken Bernsohn. I want you to know that he has been critical of me from time to time. That's doesn't surprise you. Being a campaign manager in 1979 for the New Democratic Party....

I'd like to quote from the article. "Despite talk of timber shortages, harvesting won't be cut back in the Prince George TSA for at least five years, and talks are continuing to reopen the Dease Lake extension of B.C. Rail within four years." There's a quote in here as well from a member of the Forest Service in the Ministry of Forests. It says: "If the amount harvested was cut back to the sustained yield level, it means having the timber liquidated by fire and bugs, rather than used." One of the most reputable foresters in the province, who operates an industrial forestry service, says as follows: "No one wants to cut the allowable annual cut when beetles are eating up the wood. If we cut back, we'll be cutting 250-year-old wood forever."

I'd like to make reference, if I could, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know what's bothering the member for Vancouver East today. I've read the Hopwood study too.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've done a lot of reading in the first month I've been in this portfolio.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand what's bothering the member for Vancouver East. I've been in the portfolio for four weeks. I have read a considerable amount of material — the Hopwood report, to which he refers, from cover to cover and dozens of other reports as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Lots of bad news, eh?

[ Page 7507 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Let me....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, if you would a moment. The Chair hears the member for Vancouver East but cannot see him in his chair. Possibly.... Will the minister continue on the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'd be delighted to continue on the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, this harassment that's coming from the other side — is it going to continue?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to stand in debate on this amending motion. In the meantime the Minister of Forests has been recognized and has the floor. Will the minister please continue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make reference to a few pages in the Prince George TSA report on options:

"Option No. 3 presents alternative projections of the allowable rate of harvest with the assumption that the current AAC can be temporarily increased for the next ten years, if various strategies can be implemented. These strategies are aimed at extending the onset or reducing the magnitude of the projected falldown by improving balsam problem forest type utilization; by restoring services on the B.C. Rail Dease Lake extension; and by increasing the Forest Service reserve...to ensure improved salvage operations associated with current pest detection, assessment and control efforts. Collectively, all scenarios in this option would suggest an increase in the AAC of 1.15 million cubic metres, from 8.605 million cubic metres.... After this period, and if the above strategies can be implemented, the current AAC may be continued past 80 years before falling, depending on the management alternative, to within 80 to 87 percent of the current AAC."

Now that seems to me a rather interesting comment. I mention that this is an option which is contained within the report. It involves not only maintaining current silviculture practices, but some intensive practices as well.

I'll continue with the report. I'd like to make a comment with respect to the NSR — the non-sufficiently restocked land. I quote from page 15 the following:

"There are approximately 7, 400 hectares of timber licences which, when harvested and restocked, will contribute to the TSA timber supply. Additionally, approximately 247,900 hectares of NSR lands are either stocked...or will become stocked" — and those that will become stocked they've estimated to be about 154,400 hectares — "in accordance with a current intensive silviculture program over the next 40 years. These additions will raise the net land base to 2,634,900 hectares."

MR. WILLIAMS: You're starting to lose your audience.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, you know, I always do lose the audience when we start talking about facts. Facts seem to buffalo you every time.

A great deal of effort was put in by the ministry to prepare the options for the Prince George TSA. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make reference to page 33 of the report. Very quickly, there are two cut blocks which are within that area in the Prince George TSA, and they are the Takla and the Sustut.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, why should it not be for local consumption when your own members over there plead: "We hope the reporters from the Prince George Citizen will listen to his comments and put them out"? As a matter of fact, the reporters from the Citizen have got the report and have filed their story. It's been published.

I make reference to the importance of upgrading Dease Lake for the Prince George TSA, because there's an available volume in that area in excess of 39 million cubic metres.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about the risk and profit studies? Are you going to table those too?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Member, I'm just wondering what you expected me to consume in the four weeks I've had the portfolio.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The comments which are being offered by the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, seem somewhat out of context, and I suppose they're out of context like the comment which the member for Vancouver East made reference to, I am told, on a Saturday night program — a free-time political broadcast. Well, you certainly took licence with that freedom. If there's one thing that you don't do, you surely.... If you're going to gild the lily, maybe you ought to be reasonably close in the comments you make.

A question was asked in the House yesterday with respect to log export.

MR. REID: What did he say?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I did not hear it, but I am told that the member for Vancouver East made reference to the fact that 50 percent.... Is that correct? Did you say 50 percent?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He denies it. With respect to that operation and the operations to which the member refers, Mr. Speaker, I am told by everybody in the industry on both sides of the House that the Doman operation has four of the most efficient mills on the coast. I can't deny that. I'm getting that from both sides.

With respect to the budget and the motion which was put which I'm speaking against, of course — I would like to make some reference to the northern interior and what has

[ Page 7508 ]

come to pass and why the budget is some help. There are a number of areas that I think are important.

First of all, it is the first time that I can ever remember where there were no tax increases in a budget. It seems to me that's a pretty significant event. Perhaps a lot of the difficult work which we did over the last three years is starting to bring returns to us. I look at the transportation. You know, for interior members, both southern and northern interiors, east and west in the north, transportation is the biggest issue that we have.

What has happened with the BCR, a company which turned in a profit of something in the order of $42 million during the last fiscal year? And then let me tell you about the construction that has occurred within the Prince George area. We now have a car repair shop and a diesel repair shop built in the city of Prince George. As a result of the development in the northeast, what happened on the west coast in Prince Rupert? We've got another terminal. For years and years everybody has wanted another outlet to the Pacific, and we've got an outlet to the Pacific. What gave rise to that outlet? Wheat, sulphur, coal. Why is the CN double-tracking? Why is the CPR investing the money that they do? Why did the CNR spend I don't know how much money, but it's got to be in the millions of dollars in the Prince George area, enlarging their facilities? It is all to do with transportation. What speared it on? Development in the north. Transportation is important.

What about the highways? I look at the money in the budget, and I find we have a new bridge across the Nechako. There's now a new bridge going across the Fraser River. Transportation is key to us all. I look in the Health budget. There's some money involved in there so that the rehabilitation unit and the hospital can be reopened. This is another significant expenditure during a difficult period of time. The rehab unit was closed down. There are some beds open, but it's not operating to the capacity that it was built for, and that's occurring.

You know, much was mentioned about education. I look at this and remember when the member for Vancouver East was Minister of Education. I looked at the PTR at the time. Do you know that during that three-year period when budgets were controlled, the PTR only went from 17.1 to one up to 18. I to one, an average of one student per teacher?

The budget contains a fund for education, something for which I am extraordinarily proud and something which we made a commitment to after we came out of a three-year period under which budgets were controlled. A total of 25,000 people told us what we wanted. I had no fear, as a matter of fact, when we requested a public study and public comment, particularly on what people thought of education, no reservation whatsoever. That report, when it was given to me, was turned over to me and made public within minutes.

[11:30]

Do you know, 25,000 people came out and said there were a number of things they wanted. They wanted an internship for teachers, improved teacher training, computers within the schools, improved curriculum and funding for textbooks. And what has happened? The budget made provision for it, and it's the first stage of a significant amount of money over the next three years.

It seems to me that that budget, without any tax increases, is exactly what the public was looking for. I know very well what two-thirds of the teachers say privately when they speak to us. They were all supportive of these directions so that funding would get into the classroom and not go to enlarging the district offices, where we get top heavy with administration.

I remember during my estimates in my previous portfolio when the members opposite agreed with that. Yet, you know, the strangest thing — and I'll never forget.... One particular school board raised the devil with us about a budget and said they weren't going to comply — the whole bundle. Well, do you know what happened? Two days after all of that flak came out in the press, they passed their budget. And what was delivered to my desk two days later? They wanted to surrender $250,000 because they didn't need the money, and they wanted to make sure it got back to the taxpayers. It was the honourable thing to do. But from all of the flak that came out in the paper, you would think that the place was going to collapse. It wasn't true.

With respect to transportation, Mr. Speaker, the budget address made reference to the Coquihalla. The most interesting comment of all is for those who do travel the interior. They will find the significant traffic on the Fraser Canyon, which was, as a matter of fact, heavily overloaded.... Another outlet to the interior was mandatory. Benefits will accrue to all because of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yet what do we find? We find the Leader of the Opposition, who turns around and makes comments with respect to a road on Vancouver Island. He says it should be there but speaks against the interior of the province. I wonder why. You have one tune for here, another tune for there. I don't understand how a provincial leader can draw that distinction. He has two tunes.

In the budget throughout, areas canvassed as far as the interior of British Columbia is concerned involve health, education, forestry, justice and municipal affairs. One of the things I particularly noticed is that the revenue-sharing fund has been enlarged, recognizing that on average about 15 percent — as I recall — of every municipal budget relies upon revenue-sharing. All I need to do is look at the major sewerage facilities which have been constructed for the city of Prince George, and I know where the help came from. The help came out of that particular fund.

I'm advised that I'm supposed to keep my comments down to 15 or 20 minutes. I would conclude by speaking against this motion raised by the opposition. I speak in favour of the budget and, I repeat, it covers a host of items, all of which are advantageous to the interior of British Columbia: transportation, health, education, municipal affairs and tourism. To top it all off, we've got additional funds for forestry and the biggest lift in the budget went into the Forests ministry — something between 21 and 22 percent, which includes the money from the federal government on the shareable basis under the five-year program.

I speak against the motion given by the first member for Victoria and seconded by the member for North Island.

MR. STUPICH: I've been here about 20 years now, and I think the thing that disturbs me most is the way in which the conduct of this administration has affected the reputations of all of us engaged in politics. The headlines such as we saw when this budget came out — pork-barrel politics, political slush funds — the tragedy of those headlines is that no one in B.C. suspected for one moment that they weren't telling it as

[ Page 7509 ]

it is. That's the way politics operates in B.C., and more so in the past ten years than ever before in the history of our province; more so, I would suspect, than in the history of almost every other Canadian province.

Pork-barrel politics, political slush funds, is an apt description of the way this government conducts its affairs. Those headlines were appropriate because no one believes that the government for one moment intends to live up to using these funds in a proper way. No one suspects it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. STUPICH: That is shameful, Mr. Speaker. It is a shame that the people of British Columbia have been conditioned to believe that that's the way this Social Credit administration operates. They know from experience. It's been around a long time, and they know that's the way it operates.

I didn't intend to remind us of this right at the moment, but I recall when the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was quoted publicly, after dealing with the NDP administration for about a year and a half, as saying that he was promised that we were going to do something, but he took that to be the same kind of promise he had been getting for 20 years from the Social Credit administration. He never thought for one moment that we believed it ourselves, that we intended to do anything. He found out that when we said we were going to help the agricultural industry, we lived up to our promise, and he was totally surprised. He changed his position from opposing to supporting what we were doing. People believed in those few short years that there was an administration in office — whether they liked it or not, whether they supported it or not — that lived up to its promises.

But it didn't take long for the conduct of this administration, the administration that is now in office, to show that promises by that particular political party, that administration, mean nothing other than black print on white paper, not worth the paper they're printed on. There is so much evidence of that, Mr. Speaker.

When this administration took office there were special funds, perpetual funds totalling $552 million. Where are those funds today, Mr. Speaker? That cash was sitting there, cash in the bank, cash invested in government bonds and cash invested in various home-acquisition programs and housing programs. Three months after they arrived — it was all sitting there March 31, 1976 — they were all wiped out, Mr. Speaker; every single one of them gone. In some instances they still live up to the promises. They still say: "Well, we owe this money. When we have the cash maybe we'll do something about it." But in the meantime, if you want any money out of all those programs....

I could go through them, but I'm looking at the clock. There were 35 different special funds and perpetual funds, some of them established by the previous Social Credit administration, some of them established by the NDP administration, and every one of them linked to a particular purpose that wasn't pork-barrel politics, Mr. Speaker. They were serving the needs of the people of British Columbia, and as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, they were accumulated from surpluses that arose during the Social Credit and NDP administrations: $553 million, serving the people of the province.

But what's the history of funds under this administration? Much has been said about the forest and range improvement fund, for example — a $146.6 million expenditure. It goes on to talk about what the fund was for: to improve the forests, to improve range. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there's anything that gives the lie to that particular promise, the promise that they were going to use that money to develop our forest resource, to preserve in perpetuity the harvest so that there would be a perpetual harvest from the forests....

Let's read one short paragraph from this year's budget. "Last May this government signed with Ottawa a $300 million five-year forest resource development agreement.... A prime goal will be to restore large areas of logged land that have not been adequately replanted." In 1980 — six years ago — they set up a special fund to catch up, to make sure that these large areas would be replanted. Two years later they wiped out the fund totally. That was a promise to the people of British Columbia that they were going to use the people's money to preserve and restore the forests — not to what they once were, but nevertheless to restore that resource. I think people believed them that long ago. In 1980 they had been in office for only four years, and there were at least some people in the community who believed that they were really going to do something about that. Well, Mr. Speaker, now in the budget that was read last week they are saying: we didn't do it. We broke our promise. Did you really expect us to keep our promise? It served its purpose at the time, and that's all it was for. We didn't really mean we were going to do anything for the forests. And now we're saying over again: "Look, we didn't do it before, but we're going to promise again. Whether we do it or not is something left to the future."

"But we are going to promise, Mr. Speaker, because we think people like to hear that promise. We think that today people recognize, even more than they did in 1980, that something has to be done to protect that forest resource. So once again we're going to promise it, not because we think it's something that should be done" — speaking for the Social Credit administration — "but because we think it's something that people like to hear us talk about."

The minister quoted from a report, and I happen to have something here from our research department, a Prince George TSA options report: "Increasing forestry programs are required to support present and future harvest rates." Well, indeed they are, Mr. Speaker, and we've been hearing that for 30 years of Social Credit administration. Increasing forestry programs are required to support present and future harvest rates. The extent to which these goals are achieved will be based on government funding.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look at their record to date, do you suspect for one moment that they really believe to make those funds available? Do you suspect for one moment that when the Minister of Finance goes to industry and asks for money for this forest renewal program, or goes to municipalities to ask for money, or especially when the Minister of Finance goes to the trade union movement and asks them to put money in, that any of those organizations — the municipalities or industry or the trade union movement — will have any faith in this administration living up to its promise?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The IWA once in convention was prepared to make an offer. They went so far as to discuss it with people in government service, that the pension fund might be used in part to

[ Page 7510 ]

help build up a fund that could really do something to restore the forest inventory. They were discussing that. Then lo and behold, in the same way that this government bargains with its public servants, the Premier, for political purposes, made a premature announcement about that program, made it obvious to the members of the IWA that if they were going to enter into any kind of an agreement with this government to use some of their pension money in a silvicultural program, that he would use that money and that opportunity and those negotiations for political purposes long before he would ever use them to plant another tree or to cut another limb or to do any thinning.

[11:45]

To him it was an opportunity for further advantage, and that was all that he was concerned about. It's what he is concerned about today. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, everyone in the province believes, when the government says: "We are now going to set up another fund for forest renewal. We've wiped out all the previous ones. We've not done anything positive in the past, but we're going to do it all over again; we're going to promise once more...." Unfortunately, when people use headlines like "slush funds" and I 'pork-barrel politics," it's believed. No one believes that the government intends to keep its promise, because of their record of broken promises to date. Everyone believes they will use that money for political purposes during an election campaign, whenever that might come.

Excellence in Education. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we will get away from the confrontation that we've had in this province, particularly for the last ten years. I look forward to the day when the Minister of Education will sit down and discuss with school trustees, teachers and others. Not this business of having public parades around the province every once in a while, ostensibly listening and then ignoring everything that's heard; rather, sitting down with people who really want to do something about excellence in education in British Columbia. There is a lot to be done. The government's own reports indicate that much should be done.

All of the economic reports point out the importance of quality of education here in the province. We've seen the experience of other jurisdictions where they have tried to save money in the short term but have wasted money in the long term. I suppose one of the prime examples has to be California, a state where, because of their high-tech developments and the rate at which they are into that kind of enterprise, quality education is even more important than in many other states. But they decided to cut back on what was being done in education, just as we in British Columbia have decided to cut back. There was no rhyme or reason, no sense to the cutbacks. When the cutbacks were first instituted, it was strictly a dollar amount. "There are less dollars available this year for universities, colleges, high schools, elementary schools and kindergartens, so you work it out somehow. We'll work with you, but the bottom line is that you're going to get less money. Quality doesn't matter. Try to do the best job you can, but live within these dollars." Then each year, in terms of real dollars, the amount has been progressively reduced. Quality of education has to be suffering. Certainly the system is being maintained, but quality must be suffering.

I don't know whether you have an opportunity, when you return to your riding, to listen to teachers. I don't mean teachers' organizations now; I'm thinking about individuals. I know there are individuals here and there who treat their work as teachers in much the same way as maybe some MLAs treat their work. They aren't honest about it. But there are others who are very conscientious. Unfortunately they're the ones who are retiring early because they just can't take it any longer. I know some of those individually, and I feel for them. I wish that as an MLA I could be doing more. Certainly quality does matter. The burnout of our best teachers matters as well. Quality suffers when we lose experienced, good quality teachers, and we are losing them, Mr. Speaker, in some cases to other jurisdictions.

Can anyone really believe that when the government sets up $110 million for a quality-in-education fund those funds are going to be distributed in the best way from the point of view of developing quality education? The minister has since announced, I think, that some $11 million from that fund is going to be used to put back into the budget, where it came from in the first place.... It was taken out of textbook purchase funds; now it's going to have to go back in there because there isn't enough there. That reduces the fund to less than $100 million for a start.

Where is the rest going to go? As the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) pointed out, they'll reward their friends. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, whether that is what is going to happen or not, that's what's believed in the community at large — that that $110 million, less what's coming out for textbooks, in general will be put where it will do the most political good. Whether they change their position in this instance or not, whether the government actually does use some of that money to provide for excellence in education, the conception in the community is that it will be pork-barrel politics, and that hurts all of us — you and I and all the rest. When people feel that way about their government, that's bad for all of us, bad for government, and bad for the future of the province.

The health fund — perhaps even more so than education, Mr. Speaker. We know the rate at which new hospitals and additions to hospitals were announced in the spring of 1983. It just happened to be after the election was called and before the vote, but the Minister of Health and the Premier went around the province promising capital works for hospitals in community after community. You could follow the Premier around the province by seeing where these announcements were coming out about building more hospitals. Of course, one of them was in Nanaimo. That was the spring of 1983. It was a very necessary addition to the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital that was being talked about and had been talked about for a number of years. Because although the promise was made several times, and although it was renewed in early 1983 when the Premier and the Minister of Finance and a couple of other cabinet members traveled to Nanaimo — they just happened to be there during the election campaign, and I just happened to be still here — they talked about it; they talked about it in 1984 and 1985 and they talked about it in the fall of 1985, and promised it again. And, lo and behold, this time something happened. Somehow or other it slipped through, and they actually committed themselves to build this addition. The planning is going on now, the tenders have been called, and.... I don't think the contract has been awarded; it's being examined, but it's very close now to going ahead. So in that case it did happen, long after they started talking about it. Years after it was first promised, it's finally going ahead.

But don't you think, Mr. Speaker, that with this $120 million health fund that, too, is going to be used as a pork-

[ Page 7511 ]

barrel fund, and that promises will be made in those geographical areas of the province, constituencies, where it will do the most good — calculated to do the most good, at least — when it comes to re-electing Social Credit MLAs? But whether you think it or not, Mr. Speaker, doesn't matter right now. The tragedy is that the people of British Columbia believe that that's the way this fund is going to be used.

The people of British Columbia don't really believe the budget. They don't believe the revenue will be there. They don't believe that the funds are going to be used in the way that the budget describes them as being used. They know better, unfortunately, because of promises broken. They don't trust this administration, and unfortunately there seems to be an attitude out there that it really doesn't matter. There seems to be an attitude in the community that as much as this administration can't be trusted, it's really a reflection of politicians all.

When the federal government promises to do something, it's generally accepted that they're going to move on that program. They might make a mistake or might do a bad job, but it's accepted that they're going to move. When this administration makes a promise that they're going to do something, people's reaction is: "Ho-hum; it's another promise. It's another promise that has been let out in an attempt to take some political advantage, but that's all it is." As I say, that's bad for all of us.

I wonder where went the principles of the present leader of this government, who traveled around the province late in 1975 and stood up for democracy? He stood up for the rights of the Legislature and for the rights of other elected groups — school trustees, municipalities — and said that power should be returned to those organizations and power should be shared with the members in the Legislature, and that there should be not one dime spent in the province without debate.

In this present budget $230 million is set aside in special funds that we are told are going to be used for special purposes. But the handling of those funds is going to be under the total control of the cabinet — of one or two ministers, indeed; more particularly of the Premier. Is that what he meant when he said: "Not a dime without debate"? Vote all the money and let the Premier decide how and where and when it's going to be spent. Is that what he meant by,"Not a dime without debate," or has he changed? Or was he, that early in the game, that early in his political career, making promises that he had absolutely no intention of keeping?

People know now that he can't be trusted. People know now that his promises are politically inspired and serve no purpose other than politics. The money may be spent, but it will be spent for political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, that is a tragedy, not just because it's a Social Credit Premier and a Social Credit administration, but also because all of us are included, by the community, under a similar umbrella. We kept our promises, but people are forgetting that. All they have are the last ten years of a series of regularly broken promises by a Social Credit administration that keeps on bringing out promises and more promises, and more expensive promises as we get closer to an election, in the hope that enough people will believe them this time and give them one more chance to keep some of those promises. Not a dime without debate? There is $230 million put into funds that the minister is going to use at his or her discretion, with the Minister of Finance's and the Premier's blessing.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's. kind of a sorry situation, when we have sunk so low in the eyes of our own citizens. And it's all on the heads of the administration that has been in office in this province for the last ten years. It is because of what they have done in B.C. that people can read headlines like "Pork Barrel Politics" and "Political Slush Funds," and accept them as being the way it is in B.C. That is a tragedy, if for no other reason than to bring home to the administration that they have done a disservice to all of us, to the total community, by acting in the way they have, and to show that, even in the Legislature, there are members who don't really believe that this administration intends to keep its promises to show that people should vote in favour of this amendment.

The government should be made to take notice that it is, indeed, time for a change. The time when governments can be elected and re-elected time after time on such a history, such a trail, of broken promises should be past for the people of British Columbia. It is, Mr. Speaker, time for a change.

Mr. Davis moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.