[ Page 8255 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

U.S. lumber tariffs and free trade. Mr. Skelly — 8255

Mr. Williams

Mr. D'Arcy

Education Excellence Appropriation Act (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 8257

Mr. Stupich — 8257

On the amendment — 8266

Mr. Rose

Mr. Rogers

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 33: minister's office — 8271

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Howard

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R. Fraser), I would like to introduce to the assembly a number of guests we have in the House today who are delegates to the World Symposium on Education: from Newfoundland the Hon. Loyola Hearn, Minister of Education, accompanied by Cyril McCormick, Wayne Mitchell, Milton Peach, Keith Winter and William Hynes; from Alberta the Hon. Neil Webber, Minister of Education; from New Brunswick, the Hon. JeanPierre Ouellet, Minister of Education; from Ontario the Hon. Greg Sorbara, Minister of Colleges and Universities, accompanied by Mr. Joseph Cordiano, MPP, and Mr. John Morrison; and from Nova Scotia Mr. Blenis Nicholson, the deputy minister. I am sure that all members would wish them well with their deliberations and bid them a cordial welcome, and we all look forward to them enjoying Expo 86.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like the House to join with me in giving a very special welcome today to my nephew, Kevin Gilmore, and his new bride Jane. They are on their honeymoon.

MR. PASSARELL: I'd like to also give my regards to a honeymooning couple in Victoria this week, but I think I'll let that one pass. But who I would like to introduce are some students who have come all the way from the Atlin school. They are down here today and will be visiting Expo accompanied by their teachers Ken Mitchell and Terry Markley. I wish the House would make them welcome.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House, first of all, to congratulate the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) on his wedding to his wife Ruth last Saturday. As well, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a good friend of mine from Vancouver connected with the federal Solicitor-General's ministry, Mr. Carlos Charles, who has joined us in the gallery today.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the House to welcome representatives of the Canadian Bankers' Association, who are either in the legislative chamber or in the precincts, here to meet with our caucus.

Oral Questions

U.S. LUMBER TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Premier. I'm making notes as I go along. Was the Premier consulted by the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer) prior to making the wild and intemperate statements that the minister made on the weekend about trade terrorism and retaliatory measures against the United States?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister of trade and science and investment and communications, along with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), was at a meeting called by federal trade officials at which he reiterated the British Columbia position.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We will get to the Leader of the Opposition's position just a little later today.

He proposed that all items should be on the table, that it should be a clean launch, as was stated by the President of the United States in his first statement and by the Prime Minister of Canada — no preconditions, all items on the table — and the minister reiterated the British Columbia position very well at those discussions. I want you to know that British Columbia is standing firm as part of the Canadian team in protecting our interests. We would not, at the first initiative of a few lumber companies, giggle and suggest that we should negotiate British Columbia's tax system.

MR. SKELLY: Does the Premier agree with the comments made by the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment about trade terrorism being practised by the United States? Does he agree that Canada should be preparing a retaliatory package against the United States?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have gone very clearly on the offensive in this regard. I find it hard to believe that those who oppose the free trade talks, where Canada has something to gain, would be willing to negotiate an attack on the Canadian lumber industry.

If the member opposite is a student of history, he'll understand that trade protectionism — attacks on one country's trade goods — always invites the type of action which is not a solution, and that's retaliation. The Smoot-Hawley bill in the thirties effectively destroyed two-thirds of the world's trade, Mr. Speaker, by that very fact. Therefore I have written the Prime Minister today, asking that he contact the President of the United States and make sure not only that he clean-launch all items on the table — no preconditions that he and the Prime Minister spoke of — but that we have a standstill on any protectionist trade initiatives on either side of the border while the talks are going on.

MR. SKELLY: It's amazing, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier is still asking for a clean launch when the launching pad has been blown up.

Given the wild, intemperate, ill-advised statements made on the weekend by the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer), does the Premier still have confidence that this minister is capable of negotiating or discussing these kinds of issues in a serious way with the United States?

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite howl because they love to support an action not taken by government but by U.S. lumber interests.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right now the U.S. lumber interests are giggling and chuckling, because here in B.C. the leader of the New Democratic Party said: "Oh, the Minister of Trade has reduced the possibility, taken away the possibility, of British Columbia negotiating with the U.S." The

[ Page 8256 ]

first test of fire the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) has had to face again this week, and already he wants to bow and negotiate with the U.S. lumber interests. Who is he going to negotiate with? Is he going to negotiate with a handful of senators? Is he going to negotiate with a handful of congressmen? Is he going to go down and say to George Weyerhaeuser, "You have frightened me, Mr. Weyerhaeuser"? And for the first time in history a Canadian elected official, from the bullying of the private sector in the U.S., is going to go down and let them negotiate the Canadian or the British Columbia tax system. It is laughable.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. lumber interests know they have a weak ally in the political system in British Columbia. Let us tell them, as a Legislature and a government, that that weak ally of the U.S. lumber interests, one who would negotiate with them our tax regime, does not speak for the British Columbia forest industry, doesn't speak for the British Columbia forest workers, and doesn't speak for the people of British Columbia or Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: The weakest ally in this fight against the biggest problem since the great Depression is the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer); have no doubt about that. Can Rambo Jr. confirm that he talked about a retaliatory package against the Americans? — that was quoted this weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, from time to time in the heat of debate we use terms and expressions which, upon reflection, do not meet the guidelines. The member acknowledges that.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I certainly can confirm that. I want to tell the House and the opposition that as long as I have been a representative in this House the U.S. softwood lumber industry has been seeking to introduce tariffs against our major product here in British Columbia, ever since we have been in the House. Always our case has been put forward on its merits. The merits have not changed in this past year. They have not changed since it was decided that British Columbia was not guilty of any subsidization whatsoever. What has changed in the interim is the political climate in Washington, D.C., which has suddenly made a case without merit apparently into some case with merit, and here the Premier of British Columbia has said we have nothing to negotiate in this province. We have said we believe in a clean launch and across-the-board negotiations for free trade. And what do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have an opposition, a Leader of the Opposition, a leader of the national NDP, who want to negotiate, who would plead guilty to a crime that wasn't committed, who would give away Canadian interests unilaterally.

We've got to recognize that we have that problem here in British Columbia. It wasn't this Legislature that decided to make an application in Washington, D.C., for countervailing duties. It was not the lumber industry of British Columbia. It was not the Canadian government that said or did any of those things. No, it was a protectionist group in the United States, the U.S. softwood industry, that has been after British Columbia for over a quarter of a century. And I want to know when the New Democratic Party is going to stand up for British Columbia and for Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: Will the minister of trade confirm that there are now two tables where these things are being dealt with, and there are no Canadians at one table and nobody standing up for British Columbia and our primary industry?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, l do not confirm that there are two tables. I had dinner with Ambassador Murphy. He wanted everything on the table, including Canadian medicare. The one thing he did not want to have on the table was the Canadian lumber interest.

No, there will be only one table so long as we in British Columbia insist on one table, and as long as we keep that member out of the way. He wants to have higher stumpage here in British Columbia. He wants to take merchantable timber and let it rot on the stump. He wants to make the housing prices higher in the United States and accept tariffs from the Americans. He wants to give our position away. I say never, never, never, Mr. Speaker, and that includes keeping these people out of government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary to the minister of International Trade, Science and Investment, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm that without the province of British Columbia blindly getting on the Mulroney bandwagon on free-trade issues, without investigating the impacts on British Columbia, the costs to our industry in the province, this government has given Mulroney and the United States the opportunity to establish conditions that we can't live with in British Columbia? The conditions are restrictions on Canadian lumber entry into the United States.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated that he's unfit to be Leader of the Opposition, much less leader of the government. We have free trade in the lumber industry. What is being suggested is that this be taken away. Why are they suggesting that it be taken away? Because the lumber industry in British Columbia is efficient and competitive, because it's bringing lower housing prices to the North American market. That's the crime we've committed, and the New Democratic Party are willing to permit British Columbia to pay a penalty for that kind of effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why you have free trade is so that you prevent the taking away of free trade. It's protectionism that these people have stood for. It's what their national leader stands for. If we have protectionism, then our industry in British Columbia is vulnerable, not just this year but next year and the year after. The same with the precious auto pact in Ontario for the leader of your party; the same with the Maritime fishing industry.

If you do not stand up for free trade, then what you invite, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of protectionist retaliation that we see with the softwood lumber industry in the United States.

MR. D'ARCY: To the minister of trade. The Prime Minister has stated that when serious discussions take place with the Americans on this issue, the provinces will be participating fully. Can the minister tell us whether his government will be using the same negotiating team as his government used to negotiate the Columbia River Treaty, northeast coal and the Louisiana-Pacific waferboard plant?

[ Page 8257 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there's only one address in Canada for international negotiations, and that address is Ottawa. The federal team will be negotiating an across-the-board agreement, and we want to make certain that there are not two tables — no double negotiation, no giveaway of British Columbia interests as suggested by the New Democratic Party both provincially and federally. One table. One negotiation. Clean launch. Everything on that table. And the New Democratic Party's pusillanimous attitude notwithstanding, no giveaway of British Columbia's interests.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION EXCELLENCE APPROPRIATION ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 4, Education Excellence Appropriation Act, with the observation that this is one of several bills which were alluded to and presented on budget day.

Clearly there has been wide agreement throughout the province that the most effective way to build excellence in the educational system is through a multi-year funding framework. This point was made by a number of individuals and representatives of organizations who spoke to me in the course of preparing the 1985 and 1986 budgets. They presented a very solid case for that. Therefore the government of British Columbia has decided to combine stable base funding for schools, colleges, institutes and universities with a special, clearly identified three-year fund for excellence in education. This framework will allow effective long-range planning to make the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars made available through these funds.

The Education Excellence Appropriation Act will authorize the spending of an additional $600 million on education, above and beyond the funds voted for the Ministries of Education and Post-Secondary Education. As the House will know from budget day, of this sum, $110 million will be available in the fiscal year 1986-87.

The fund will be used to make adjustments to the operating budgets of school boards, colleges, institutes and universities, and to fund innovative proposals from the education community. The government expects to see, and has already seen, local authorities taking the initiative in developing proposals and establishing consensus on program priorities. On the K to 12 side of the fund, l note with interest that four proposals, possibly five, were approved quite recently. In one of them, on Vancouver Island in the vicinity of Qualicum, the Qualicum School Board advances an innovative and thoughtful proposition which met the criteria under Excellence in Education.

The government does not have unlimited funds at its disposal. We are in deficit. But we believe that much can be achieved if the sums available are spent wisely. If I might mention some of the things that we believe could be supported under the authority of the act which is before the House today, our basic goal is to improve the quality of instruction and research. We expect to see more computers and ancillary equipment in schools, an improved school curriculum, leading-edge courses in colleges, and improved university library services, to name just a few examples.

Our institutions will also be seeking ways to attract and retain the very best instructors and researchers. The fund will obviously assist them in this goal.

The government expects institutions to stretch the available dollars. As a result, initiatives which increase productivity and efficiency, or bring in outside funding, will be rewarded.

[2:30]

Centres of excellence will be established in subject areas important to economic development. These may include — but they are not essential — international business and finance, cultural industries, microelectronics and computing science, biotechnology, or resource industries such as forestry.

In addition, the government is seeking ways to ensure that the best students take advantage of the opportunities offered by higher education. The possibilities are exciting. The government expects that, thanks to the fund for excellence in education, the next three years at least will be seen as a turning point for education in our province. During those three years we know that the education community has in mind actions that will be taken to create the educational basis of our future prosperity.

This is a financing bill, and I endorse it and commend it to the House. I move second reading of Bill 4.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said near the closing of his moving of second reading that it's a financing bill and that he moves it. I suppose it's obvious that he moves it. It's not so obvious that it's a financing bill. Indeed, it has been described in the Vancouver dailies as a political slush fund, as a means of providing pork-barrel funds. I think perhaps that's a more appropriate description of the legislation than the one used by the minister.

The bill does provide for up to $110 million to be spent by March 31, 1987. Provision for that is in the budget that we have been discussing and the estimates we've been discussing since budget day. However, the remainder of the fund is something that may or may not be provided for in subsequent budgets.

There is and there can be no guarantee that anything other than the $110 million for this fund ever will be made available. As I say, that's not a criticism; that's just the way things work. There can't be any guarantee that this administration, or any other, would follow through on the promises to provide funds in the future. As a matter of fact, we have seen evidence of similar promises by this same administration, where they have broken the promises within two years of having made them, and not only not put further contributions into the fund but indeed have taken out of the fund the balance remaining that was underspent from previous years. So we know their history.

We know when it comes to making promises for future action that they can't be trusted. As a matter of fact, we know that this government can't be trusted when it makes promises with respect to current programs, let alone future ones.

We have a lot of concern about this legislation. We're concerned it's being used, as the Vancouver daily described it, as pork-barrel funds, political slush funds. It's passing strange — perhaps not in B.C., but it would be in any other administration — that where any payment said to have come out of this fund is announced, in those instances where the constituencies have a Social Credit MLA, the Minister of Finance needs the assistance of the local MLA to make the

[ Page 8258 ]

announcement. The local MLA is given credit. In some instances, because of the geography of the school districts as compared to the geography of constituencies, the Minister of Finance needs the help of two or perhaps even three local Socred MLAs. Even though one of them is the Premier, he still needs help to make these announcements, whereas in constituencies represented by other members, whether NDP or any others — I don't suppose there have been any in Prince Rupert — the Minister of Finance needs no assistance. It's not because money hasn't been going into colleges and institutions in those areas; it's simply that the Minister of Finance finds he's physically and fiscally capable of making that kind of an announcement in such constituencies without the help of anyone. But as I say, in the constituencies represented by Socreds, he needs a lot of help.

Excellence in Education is great — motherhood. I suppose we all want to see more excellence in education. But the desperate need in British Columbia today, after three years of Socred restraint.... It's more than three years now, because it really started in February of 1983. After three years of Socred restraint, we're not really concerned about improving the quality of education. What we're truly concerned about is maintaining the quality that exists today — not even the quality that existed three years ago, but the quality we're left with today after three years of starving educational institutions of the funds they need to maintain the level of education, of which B.C. once was proud. We're not proud anymore. We know we've fallen behind nine other Canadian provinces when it comes to maintaining and improving the quality of education offered in British Columbia. So we're not talking about improving quality of education, we're talking about some desperate moves to try to maintain quality.

When the minister talks about feeding tens of thousands of dollars — in some cases even hundreds of thousands — out of the Excellence in Education fund to various programs, in almost every instance all he's doing is replacing some of the funds that he or the Minister of Education has taken from those very programs in order to build up an amount of $110 million that may be spent if, as, when and where the Minister of Education feels it will do the most good. The way it has worked out in practice, of course, is that he has had to scurry around trying to fill in the holes which are so deep because of the cuts that very little of the $77.6 million — as I have it now — already committed out of the fund.... almost all of that has gone to partially fill in holes created by stealing funds from those programs in the first place. So very little has been done to date to improve the quality of education in the province. Very little has been done even to maintain the level of education in the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I've talked about the pork-barrel aspect of the fund. I've talked about the permissiveness of it. My research notes tell me that the funds may not be spent if the cabinet decides it needs the money elsewhere. The legislation provides that the minister, not the cabinet — if it were the cabinet at least that would be a number of people — decides when, where, if and in what quantity the funds are going to be spent. He makes that decision, and if he doesn't spend them, then presumably they're left to be used in some other way, or perhaps used to carry on some other program in another year.

The ill-defined objectives. What kind of consultation has there been with educational authorities — the people who are involved in delivering the educational service — as to just what should be considered excellent in education? There are no objectives defined in the legislation. The money was being spent long before the legislation came up for discussion in the House. We have committed almost 75 percent of the total fund, and yet no objectives describe.... The Minister of Finance, in a very brief moving of second reading, told us little about the real objectives. There was a bill on the order paper, so of course the Minister of Education could say that he couldn't talk about it. But very little was said about the objectives, other than the descriptions in the dailies quite openly saying they're simply pork-barrel funds that are going to be used in an attempt to win the next election, whenever that may be.

For example, there's something else here, the signs that have been put along the highways, advertising Expo: $50,000 per sign.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I know. It's an example of how you're using the funds out of the Excellence in Education fund and saying it's for quality in education. Because you used them to announce something somewhere, during the course of the pre-election period, the Minister of Education says this is appropriate to come out of education, whether or not it has anything to do with education, except by his wildest imagination.

All of the educational institutions have been hit by this base funding, the inadequacy of the base funding, every school district. There were some 58, at one point, that I had seen that were going to go over budget, that were going to have to go to their local taxpayers for more money. I don't know how many of them ended up doing it, or are going to end up doing it. But, Mr. Speaker, you know from your own experience, as the MLA for Prince George South, that the school districts up there are having trouble delivering education because of the inadequacy of the base funding. We have all heard from our colleges and we know some of the problems. Perhaps the situation is a little worse in Nanaimo; at least, it captured headlines a little more with the recently announced resignation of the president of Malaspina College. After three to four years of inadequate funding, he has felt that with respect to his ability to lead Malaspina College in the direction in which he and his council feel it should be going, in serving the Malaspina College district, he just isn't able to function any longer in what he feels is a reasonable way.

School district operating grants have been cut. The textbook program was cut. All kinds of programs were cut, and the cuts were used to provide the money for this $110 million that the minister may use in a blatantly political way, as he has been doing to date in announcing the release of these funds, along with the appropriate MLA. The school boards in the province have had $167 million cut from their fiscal framework, and even that may be low rather than high.

This is all happening at a time when Statistics Canada reports that since this administration seized control of school district budgets just four years ago, there has been 17 percent inflation in Canada. Everything that the school districts are buying has gone up in cost, whether it's hydro, whether it's supplies, whether it's equipment. In total there has been an increase in inflation of 17 percent, yet they have had their funds cut.

[ Page 8259 ]

Provincial funds for schools declined $75 million between 1982-83 and 1985-86. The homeowners were hit; they paid more, $13.7 million more in school taxes between 1982-83 and 1985-86. They're paying more, but the school districts are getting less. They'll be hit with more taxes this year in most school districts. At the time this was written, budgets were still being finalized. School college operating budgets have been cut $21 million between 1982-83 and 1986-87. University operating grants cut $51.3 million from 1982-83 to 1986-87. In real terms colleges get 25 percent less than the universities, and the universities 30 percent less than they did in 1982-83.

Where did the $110 million come from in detail? We have, to some extent, to guesstimate, I suppose, but it would appear that universities, colleges and institutes adjustments lost $27.6 million in funds that were not renewed; the public school system, relative to 1985-86, lost $65 million; cutting the books for school children, $11 million; cutting special initiatives in post-secondary education, $1.8 million — a total of $105.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, it would seem there is little doubt but that the Excellence in Education Fund was financed by underfunding the base budgets of schools, colleges and universities. This appropriation should be restored to those budgets, and let the elected school boards, the appointed college boards and the universities look after their programs to the best of their ability. Even though the funds are limited, at least let them have the money, and let them decide in their own institution how those funds might best be applied, rather than leaving it up to the political needs of the Social Credit Party, in anticipation of a provincial election.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker, there are good grounds, from the point of view of education, for opposing Bill 4. Certainly the school districts need the extra money. They've lost it; the government has taken it away from them. Now the government is saying: "Under certain circumstances, we are prepared to give some of it back to you." So it would seem as though the pressure is on the school districts to ask for some of this money, to plead for some of this money, to try to retain some of the programs that they have had and that they have had to cut back on. The pressure is on the colleges to beg for some of the money, and they have done this. They have appeared before the Minister of Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R. Fraser). They have appeared, I expect, before the Minister of Finance — certainly before the minister responsible — trying to get the release of these funds to save some of the existing programs, not to bring in new programs. To some extent, in some instances, their pleas have been met.

I'd like to discuss another aspect of this, and I have referred to it already. It's about this business of the Minister of Post-Secondary Education having the authority to spend $110 million this week if he chooses, or next week or next month, depending exactly upon the date of the election — that is, to the extent that the fund has not already been spent. That wasn't planned. I am sure in my mind that they intended to hold the whole of the $110 million until the very point in time when it would do the most good politically, and they just erred. They made a mistake, and they've had to spend a lot of it before that. There's no question in my mind that they intended to give the appropriate minister the authority to spend that money in accordance with the political timetable of the Social Credit Party.

Whatever, it took the authority to control that spending out of the hands, out of the votes, of the members in the House. Presumably the minister would one day have to report to the House and tell us what he did with that money. When we see Public Accounts for 1986-87 in March 1988, a couple of years down the road, we will know then what the minister thought was properly excellence in education. We'll know what he did with it. He'll have to answer to us then, and he could be asked down the road to answer questions about what he did some two years back.

My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), said: "If he's here." We've had experience before of asking questions of ministers, only to be told: "That minister has been replaced by a different person in the meantime, so there's no point in asking questions." But it's the same old ministry. It won't be the same old administration, I hope, by the time we're asking questions about this particular expenditure. Nevertheless, that problem does exist.

Whatever happened to the plea of the Social Credit caucus, from whom we heard so much in 1974 and 1975, when they raised the cry: "Not a dime without debate." They're asking us to approve the expenditure in this year of $110 million that will be totally under the control of one minister. That's according to the legislation. I know things have happened since, but we're dealing with the legislation right now, and the legislation gives one minister the authority, within a period of 12 months and any time within that period, without any rules or guidelines, to spend $110 million with absolutely no debate — other than giving him a cheque of.... We might as well put the money in his account and say: "Here, go and spend it. Tell us a couple of years from now what you did with it. Here's $110 million. You do whatever you want with it, wherever you want and whenever you want, and then tell us about it a couple of years down the road."

There wasn't a member in the House from Prince George South when that debate went on. The redistribution changed that. There was a member from Fort George but not from Prince George South. There was a very long debate in the House. It went over a period of two years — "not a dime without debate." The debate extended far beyond the precincts. The debate, such as it was, went on all over the province of British Columbia. In those days we were led to believe that what the Social Credit members were talking about was the threat to democracy. It wasn't politics at all; they were concerned about the threat to democracy that this attempt to say that there shall be some reasonable limit to the length of time spent on estimates, just as there is on almost everything we do in this House.... There isn't on estimates. But there are limits to the time that I may speak on this bill right now. There are limits on the time that the minister spoke. During the course of delivering his budget speech I noticed that he was watching the clock in the last three-quarters of an hour, just as I was. My time was limited. So we have agreed among us that in order to have matters proceed through the House in a reasonable way, there shall be time limits on certain things. The NDP administration presented a plan — and passed the motion, actually — that there should be a limit, and a very long limit, to the time spent on estimates. The Social Credit members, the Conservative members and the Liberal members who were in the House at the time... There were such things then, Mr. Speaker. It's before your experience, but there actually were Liberal and Conservative members.

[ Page 8260 ]

The Social Credit Leader of the Opposition spent little time in the House, but spent a lot of time speaking around the province. At one point, I believe, he said that he wasn't going to attend the House again until this matter was resolved. He took the battle out into the community. Mr. Speaker, perhaps that's what we should be doing now. Perhaps we should all be out there travelling around the province and saying: "This government wants the right to spend over a billion dollars without any debate. They want you to grant to two ministers the right to spend over a billion dollars, and they don't want to debate it, they don't want to talk about it and they don't want to answer questions about it until up to some two years later."

There's a story from the Victoria Times dated May 15, 1975: "Social Credit leader Bill Bennett opened his campaign Wednesday against limits in the spending estimates debate" — that's May 15, 1975; he opened his campaign then, nine months or eight months before the election — "by challenging the NDP membership to censure Premier Dave Barrett at the party's convention this weekend." The NDP were meeting in convention, and the then Leader of the Opposition was urging the members of the New Democratic Party to oppose the Premier at that convention and to urge upon him that he pick up the old principles of democracy that prevailed in the NDP and that prevailed in the CCF and say that we had to have the authority in the House to decide on spending. Members of the House on both sides had to have the right to decide whether or not a minister would spend money and how he would spend it, and he had to answer questions about his spending program. And the then Leader of the Opposition wanted the party to take the Premier — Premier Dave Barrett — to task and urge upon him that he abandon any idea that he might have of curtailing debate in the House on spending estimates.

That's supposed to be the same party that in government today brings forward legislation that says that the Minister of Education should have the right to spend up to $600 million without debate. "Not a dime...." A dime isn't worth talking about. But if we're going to give him $600 million, well, that's okay to the Social Crediters today. They've certainly changed, haven't they? In eleven years they have come from saying that every dime should be debated in this House to a point where they now say that $600 million in one bill shall be debated some two years hence, not today. Where is the democracy in that?

"The Leader of the Opposition, speaking to an overflow partisan crowd of 500 in the Broadway Holiday Inn, said he challenges the NDP at the convention to show the people they still believe in democracy." Well, I challenge the members on the government side of the House to show they believe in democracy, and to urge the minister to withdraw this legislation. I wouldn't ask them to vote against him — today that would be suicide — but to urge the minister to withdraw this legislation and to put the money back where it belongs in the budgets from which it was misappropriated.

"...to show the people they still believe in democracy and they still believe in discussions." Mr. Speaker, we're allowed to discuss this bill, but we can't get into the details of what the bill is going to do, because we don't know; the minister doesn't know today, and he doesn't know when or how much, so nobody can talk about the details. The Minister of Education could tell us if he has any specific plans, but from the way in which the funds have been doled out to date I think it's quite obvious that the minister is reacting to emergencies rather than paying on the basis of plans that he and his ministry have drawn up.

"I ask them to censure the Premier of this province and their leader," he said. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would never ask a bunch of sheep to censure the goat that's leading the herd. But I would ask the Social Credit members to discuss this with the Premier, to remind him about what he said about democracy, to remind him what his attitude was towards this principle of "not a dime without debate," and remind him that he should discuss with the Minister of Finance the propriety of withdrawing this bill at this time. I would ask him to do that, Mr. Speaker. Anything more than that would be asking far too much.

"The Leader of the Opposition praised the founders of the NDP" — well, I'm not prepared to go that far — "and the party's role in British Columbia politics, but he was less than kind to Premier Barrett or his government, especially for the recent closure of debate on departmental spending estimates." Well, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that two or three years ago closure became almost the order of the day. A lot has happened since 1975, and the administration that was so concerned about closure in 1974-75 used it very easily, willingly and readily in 1983. However, leaving that aside, the question was spending estimates. The Leader of the Opposition then wanted unlimited time to debate each and every estimate, unlimited opportunity to question each and every minister about what he or she intended to do with respect to spending estimates. That's what I'm asking for now. I'm asking that this bill be withdrawn and that the money be put back into the education budget where it properly belongs and that the authority for spending it, the responsibility for spending it, go back to the school boards, the college boards and the Universities Council.

"The Leader of the Opposition" — it says Bennett here, but I'm saying Leader of the Opposition because I don't want you to shake your head; I'd rather have it nodded — "ejected from the B.C. Legislature Tuesday for attempting to continue discussion on estimates, told the crowd that if the NDP membership refused to censure Barrett, the government and the party would be destroyed." Well, Mr. Speaker, the government was certainly defeated in the next election. The party, I submit, has not been destroyed. If there was any feeling over there that the party was destroyed, then I think we would have been into an election campaign before now. So I think they're a little concerned that the party is doing quite well right now. However, he was saying that if the party didn't take this seriously, if the party didn't really believe in democracy, then the party itself was letting down the people of British Columbia, and the party should take the responsibility of dealing with the government it supported and urging upon that government that they withdraw this attempt to limit discussion on spending estimates — not do away with it, but have some limit.

He said he was in Vancouver to ask the people if they were prepared to pass the estimates of eight departments. Well, the newspaper story goes on to say that people were not. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if the same question were put to them, how they would feel today. I guess it would depend on the audience. If it were a Social Credit audience, they might feel quite happy about a Social Credit Minister of Education having the authority to spend $110 million to suit the political purposes of the Social Credit Party. They might feel quite happy about that. If it were an NDP audience, then of course

[ Page 8261 ]

they would not feel very happy about it, and would make their feelings known at the time.

The decision was to limit debate in the estimates to 135 hours or 45 days, whichever was longest when the time limit expired. Another quotation from the Leader of the Opposition's speech that day: "'If we have something to tell the Premier of the province, it's not one dime without debate,' said the Leader of the Opposition" — not ten cents. Mr. Speaker, from your reading of Bill 4, you're aware that we're not talking about ten cents. We're talking about 6,000 million ten cents: $600 million. He said that "historically parliaments have always fought to control spending from public funds, and that parliaments have a fundamental right to discuss public spending." Indeed, that's what parliament's all about.

[3:00]

There are a lot of things we talk about in the House, a lot of things we argue about when we get into question period, but when it comes right down to it, the only real authority we have is to vote yea or nay when it comes to spending. We can ask questions in discussing estimates, but we can't insist on answers. We can be stopped from asking questions if we ask them too often — they're tedious and repetitious. We can't insist on an answer, but we do have the right to ask questions, and we have the right to vote for or against each proposal to spend funds.

That's the only real right that we have — not just a right, Mr. Speaker, an obligation, because it's not our money we're spending. We're spending the money of the people of the province of British Columbia. In the last five years, of course, it's borrowed money that we're spending, to quite an extent. Nevertheless, the people are responsible for paying those loans off some day, and it seems likely that under the present administration that day will never come. Nevertheless, we're not spending our own money, we're spending the people's money, so we have not only the right but have an obligation to question every expenditure of public funds. This right is being denied to us to the extent of the $600 million in Bill 4 that is before us right now. On that basis alone the bill should be withdrawn, and if it isn't withdrawn, surely there should be enough people on the other side of the House who, combined with the opposition, will convince the government that they are in error in trying to take away from the Legislature this authority over the spending of $600 million in this one bill.

There are other bills that I won't talk about now, but in this one bill alone.... Because although, as I said, it's dealing with year two and year three, and although the money for year two and year three have not been provided yet — not in the budgets, as they can't be.... Is there not a designated speaker situation, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, there is, hon. member. You could proceed for another two hours, but it would be a courtesy to advise the Chair. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I remembered when the light came on that I was supposed to have discussed that with you. I won't be another two hours, if that's of any comfort.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: You said another two hours. I wasn't going to take you up on that.

The Premier goes on to say — and this is another quotation from the same newspaper story: "When we become the government, we will return this historic right to the people of this province." Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to curtailing the time spent on spending estimates, that right was restored to the Legislature, so in 1976, fresh in office, the new Social Credit administration and the new Premier lived up to the then Premier's campaign promise and restored to the Legislature the possibility of having unlimited time for discussing spending estimates — all they wanted.

But that was ten years ago, and now ten years later the Premier apparently has forgotten his successful campaign in 1974-75. He has apparently forgotten that he convinced the people of the province over a 12-month period, including a period when he was thrown out of the House for obstruction — I don't say he was obstructing; I'm simply saying that's why he was thrown out at the time.... In spite of that he apparently has forgotten all of that, has forgotten his promises to the people that when he became Premier things would be different, and the Legislature would have the absolute authority as well as the responsibility and the obligation to vote on expenditures.

May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the quotation: "When we become government" — which indeed they did, on December 22, 1975 — "we will return this historic right to the people of this province." They did for a while, and now they are taking it away. But not 10 cents — $600 million in this one piece of legislation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Going on with his speech: "The right that David Barrett denies us as opposition, we will grant the NDP as opposition when we form the government." Well, I think that is the kind of promise that the NDP could go around the province making right now, because certainly while we might very well have felt at the time that it was reasonable to have curtailed the time being spent on estimates, the idea that any one minister in any government should have the right to spend $600 million without having to justify that in the House before he spent it, as opposed to after, would be anathema to the NDP We would never make that kind of a proposal in the House. If any party did, and if there were still a remnant of Social Crediters around, I would expect those Socreds to embark upon the same campaign that they did in 1974-1975. I would expect them to go all round the province and convince people that the government of the day, whatever government it was, was taking away from the Legislature the supreme authority, the only real authority that the Legislature has: the right to vote on spending, to ask questions on spending, to hold the ministers accountable before rather than after the fact.

The Leader of the Opposition said: "The Barrett government has betrayed the party founders and brought shame to them." Mr. Speaker, that is how he described the NDP at the time. I don't know what the attitude of the Social Credit about such things was when it was first founded. I believe at the beginning they were a democratic movement, where they started. I doubt that there is any relationship at all between the current Social Credit organization in British Columbia and the original Social Credit Party with its principles. Certainly the idea that governments or individual ministers.... As I

[ Page 8262 ]

said, even if the cabinet had the authority, that's one thing. But to give to a minister the authority to spend this kind of money! He doesn't have to go to the cabinet and ask them. Presumably he would consult with the Premier.

"The Barrett government has betrayed the party founders and brought shame to them." Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to bring shame to the founders of the present Social Credit organization or the current members of that organization in the province of British Columbia, this government, by taking this kind of authority out of the Legislature, without shame.... They're taking it away and not even making any excuses for it other than to say that the minister knows best how to use this money during an election campaign. That's really the only excuse for doing it. Mr. Speaker, if there is anything more shameful for a government to do than that, then I don't think we've seen any examples of it in the province of British Columbia.

It goes on to say: "They would be ashamed to see what has happened to their party as government in the province of British Columbia." Well, shades of — shall we say — William Aberhart or Ernest Manning or W.A.C. Bennett. He was in office as Premier for 20 years in British Columbia. Not once did he try to get a dime without debate in the House. Six hundred million dollars in one bill, and there are two other such bills before us. There are three similar bills in total, but in this instance $600 million. Even though Premier W.A.C. Bennett had total control in the Legislature, never had to worry about a vote, always had a good majority, never once did he propose the spending of this kind of money to be under the total control and jurisdiction of one minister, who as I say would not have to answer questions about it until a couple of years down the road.

He said: "Although B.C.'s budget has doubled since the NDP government was elected in 1972, the amount of time allowed for debates has decreased." Mr. Speaker, that isn't true, but it doesn't really matter. He produced a list of financial losses by the government. I won't get into that, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that we may be getting to the minister's estimates soon, and then we can talk about the losses. But then the next line. It's repetition, but he believed in repetition at the time. It went down well with the audience before which he was speaking. "You don't think we need the opportunity to question them with that sort of record?" he said.

When I get the opportunity, I can talk about five years of deficits under this administration. I can talk about the way in which the debt has quadrupled in the ten years since this administration has been in office, the losses that they made on almost everything in which they have invested. With that kind of record, should we say to them: "Sure, how much money do you want? We will vote it ahead of time, and then you can tell us some day later, if you feel like it, what you spent it on. But we're not terribly interested in holding up things in the House, although you'd never know it from looking outside. It is May. So let's get on with things, and let's just vote all the money that is required for the government and then have them come back and tell us a couple of years from now what they did with it."

If we are going to give $600 million to one minister and $1.2 billion to another, why are we bothering dealing with estimates for the minister's office of $70,000? What's the point in dealing with $70,000 if we're going to give $600 million in authority to one minister? Where is the relevancy of what we're doing here if we're going to be approving legislation such as this?

"The Leader of the Opposition reiterated that he will not return to the Legislature until Barrett allows renewed debate on spending estimates." He took it very seriously then, Mr. Speaker. But times have changed. There's a very old saying — very trite to say it now, I suppose — that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It would appear as though that is what has happened in this instance. Perhaps the minister will have something to say about that.

"Don Phillips, Social Credit MLA for South Peace River, ejected from the House with Bennett, also addressed the crowd" — he felt the same way; he's not here now to speak for himself — "as did party president Grace McCarthy and Harvey Schroeder, Social Credit MLA for Chilliwack." Those two members are still in the House. They felt very strongly about the government having the authority to spend 10 cents without debate in 1975. How do they feel in 1986?

Is the difference the fact that they are sitting in government now and they were in opposition then? Is that what they meant at the time — that they don't approve of spending 10 cents without debate if somebody else is doing it? "If we were doing it, $600 million would mean nothing, a billion dollars to another minister would mean nothing; but if somebody else is doing it, then every 10 cents must be debated." Is that what democracy is all about, Mr. Speaker? Is that what they really mean when they talk about the founders of the party being ashamed of the government in office?

There were other stories, but they are very similar. Here's one from the Vancouver Sun dated May 14, 1975. There was no election campaign on then — at least, not officially — but the Leader of the Opposition was certainly conducting one. "The opposition leader, expelled from the Legislature during an angry exchange Tuesday, announced today that he will abandon his seat for the foreseeable future, to take the issue of government spending estimates to the public." That's how he felt about it then. He was very concerned about spending estimates in May 1975, when he was Leader of the Opposition. Now that he's Premier, he apparently has lost all concern that he might have had for democracy, all concern that he might have had for the right, the obligation and the responsibility of MLAs to examine ministers about their spending program.

This is a quotation, and I've had it from another source: "Until the government relents and allows free discussion of estimates, I will take the estimates to the people." Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that's one of the things I want to do in the coming days and weeks and months: tell the people, as I speak, write or communicate with them in any way at all, that this government, contrary to the high principles that the Leader of the Opposition then had....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: "Espoused" rather than "had," because we don't know how he really felt about it, but we certainly know what he espoused. Contrary to what he espoused in those days, he really had no interest in democracy; he really had no interest in the rights of the members of the House, their obligations or their responsibilities. He had only one goal in mind, and that was to occupy the Premier's chair, so that he could have total control of spending estimates under his thumb.

[ Page 8263 ]

Mr. Speaker, that's what Bill 4 does. It gives him, through his Minister of Education, the right to spend up to $110 million by March 31 of next year. As I say, it could be spent all in one week, according to the bill. We can't deal with what has happened up to now. But the way it reads, the bill gives that minister the authority to spend up to $110 million in any one-week period in the course of 52, or to spend it over the year — whatever that minister decides. Certainly implicit in the legislation, to me at least, is the idea that the Premier will have a lot of influence as to how that minister spends that money, or the minister won't survive — and we've seen some examples of that fairly recently.

"The Leader of the Opposition said he would conduct a provincewide tour, beginning with a rally at 8 p.m. tonight in the Holiday Inn on West Broadway." He really espoused these principles in 1975, Mr. Speaker. I leave it to him. There certainly could be an opportunity for him, during the course of this debate, to stand up and say why he has changed his mind, or to stand up and admit that in 1975, while he professed to believe in democracy, while he professed to believe in the rights of the Legislature to debate spending estimates, to him it was just a political ploy. If he stands up and admits that, I have no argument left — that's it, so be it. Having reached the Premier's chair, his goal, then he's ready to do anything and everything to make sure that he hangs onto that as long as he wants to do it.

[3:15]

"The Leader of the Opposition said that other members of his caucus will remain in the Legislature in the hopes of convincing the government to abandon its position of enforcing a time limit on the debate of budget estimates." Mr. Speaker, that's what the debate was all about at that time: whether or not the Legislature could debate every dime. Now we're talking about $600 million. Is $600 million so important that we have two Social Credit members in the House — and, I admit, two on our side? When we were discussing whether or not we should debate every dime, the Legislature was generally quite crowded. The party that was so concerned about the right of members in the House to discuss every dime had everyone here. Today, when they are going to be asked to vote for the minister's right to spend $110 million in one year, they're not interested. Their minds are made up. They haven't listened to the discussion. I expect that none of them will take part in the discussion other than the minister responsible for the bill. They know how they're going to vote; they've made up their minds. They're not interested in going to the minister and saying: "Look, are we really doing the right thing here? Is it proper? Is it democratic? Is it in keeping with the traditions of British democracy, the kind of democracy that has been built up over several hundred years? Is it really the thing to do — to give the Minister of Education the authority to spend $110 million in the course of 12 months?"

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm not a betting person, but if I were, I'd be quite prepared to bet that not a single member of the Social Credit caucus will ever discuss with the Minister of Finance whether this is the right thing to do. They will accept the rule. They will accept the leadership of the person who travelled around this province for some ten months and conducted a campaign to persuade the voters of British Columbia that they should throw out of office a government that proposed a time limit on spending estimates, and is now prepared — I don't say "today," because I don't know what day it will start — to go around the province and justify his action in saying that one of his ministers should have the right, during an election campaign, to spend $110 million in the best interests of the Social Credit Party. And they will accept that.

Democracy. Traditions. "The opposition leader and fellow Socred Don Phillips were expelled from the House during an angry exchange about the right to debate $2 billion in estimates. The House exploded into bedlam when the government invoked its time limit and attempted to force approval of the estimates without debate." Mr. Speaker, I expect that there will be no bedlam at this time. I'm not sure even that the public will become aroused. I'm afraid that the public have come to the point where they're ready to accept almost anything — indeed, in many cases to expect nothing — from the Social Credit administration. Anything that they do is excused on the basis: well, what do you expect of the Social Credit members? What do you expect of the Social Credit administration? That's their pattern. That's the way they work. They know what's best and they'll do what's best depending upon their own decisions.

"There were shouts of 'dictator' from the opposition benches, and retorts of 'opposition anarchy' from the government side." Mr. Speaker, we could well shout that today when we come to the point of voting on Bill 4 in second reading. It's far closer to dictatorship when you give individual ministers the right to spend funds in the way this bill does.

I wonder what would be the next step. How far might we go beyond this? I said earlier, almost facetiously: why not deal with the whole budget figure? Why not say a bill for $9.6 billion to be spent as the Minister of Finance decides? Why bother with estimates? If we're going to take out of estimates $110 million in this case, and other hundreds of millions in other bills, why bother with individual estimates for small amounts? I raised that question earlier, Mr. Speaker.

"The Leader of the Opposition and Phillips were escorted out of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms when they refused to stop talking and take their seats as ordered, first by the Deputy Speaker and then by Speaker Gordon Dowding. The Leader of the Opposition, red-faced, angry and pointing his finger at Dowding said, 'I will not withdraw,' when the Speaker asked him to leave. In an interview today, the Leader of the Opposition said: 'We propose to conduct informational meetings to bring to the people the seriousness of closure of debate in the Legislature."' Mr. Speaker, I would like that opportunity now, and indeed I will be speaking on it, because I believe that this is important. I'm not sure how many of my colleagues are exercised about this, but I take it seriously. I've been around here a long time. I have not seen anything like this happen before, and I hope that I never see it again. In all likelihood I won't be here that long. To give to a minister the right to spend this kind of money and to come back two years later and tell us what he did with it — I've not seen anything quite like this.

"It is our feeling that the Legislature is now a farce." Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I've indicated that in my remarks so far. Isn't it a farce if we talk about spending tens of thousands in different votes among different ministries, the detail of them, and ask ministers questions about what they're doing, criticize what they're doing? We can't urge them to spend more, but we can move motions that they spend less on

[ Page 8264 ]

that particular program. Isn't it a farce that we deal with relatively small amounts like that and, because of the campaign waged by the then Leader of the Opposition and the one campaign promise that we know he kept....'' I can't think of any others offhand, but he did keep that campaign promise to do away with the time limit on spending estimates discussion, and then he brings in something like this.

It is a farce. Our time would be better spent reporting to the people. Sooner or later we'll all have that opportunity. At the present time, of course, we have to stay pretty close to Victoria, but sooner or later we'll have the opportunity to tell people what we think about a government that was such a strong supporter of democracy and the rights of parliament in 1975, and that has so totally abandoned those principles — or at least the principles which they professed.

"To all intents and purposes, the House is no longer discussing the people's business, and I don't intend to sit through long procedural wrangles. Until the government relents and allows free discussion of estimates, I will take the estimates to the people." This is a quotation from the then Leader of the Opposition. In those days, of course, had he chosen to — or had anyone else chosen to — he could have spoken without time limit in opposition to what was happening. That isn't the case today. I'm limited as to how long I may speak against this bill. My colleagues are limited even more closely. The Minister of Finance, in presenting this bill, was limited in the time he had, and will be limited when he responds. There are limits, and they are reasonable limits. I don't quarrel with the limits.

The Leader of the Opposition then chose to take his fight outside of the House where the decisions are being made and the votes are being taken. He chose to handle them politically outside of the House. I, at this time at least, have chosen to handle them here in the House.

"The Leader of the Opposition said Phillips will join him in the Vancouver rally tonight, but it is not known if Phillips will join the party leader on the provincewide tour. The current furor goes back to last spring when the decision was made to establish time-limits. The opposition claims the rule constitutes closure and has opposed any time-limit. The government proposed a compromise Monday, but the compromise was unacceptable to the Social Credit opposition."

The Premier — Premier Barrett at the time — made one worthy observation, particularly in view of my colleague's remark that it wasn't the principles that the Leader of the Opposition had at the time, but rather the principles that he professed to have. Premier Barrett said outside the House that the opposition was led by hate rather than by reason, so he raised the question as to whether the Leader of the Opposition, in arguing against the limit on spending estimates, was really arguing against the principle or was simply trying to take political advantage of a situation.

I have to ask again, where is the Premier today, the person who travelled the province talking about how important it was to maintain parliamentary rights, to speak in favour of democracy, to protect the opportunities for the members in the House to discuss and to debate spending estimates? It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Why pursue this? I've taken time. I think I'm not getting through to very many government members, yet there's always the hope that one of them will start to think. There's always the hope, I suppose, that one of them will be a little embarrassed about hearing the words of the now Premier, and will think about them and about what they're doing to the Legislature, to democracy, in proceeding with this particular legislation.

This is the story out of the Sun the following day, May 15: "Not a Dime Without Debate, Leader of the Opposition Vows. An indignant Leader of the Opposition vowed Wednesday never to 'freely or willingly' surrender the Legislature's right to control the public purse." That's the point I tried to make earlier. It's not as though we're approving or disapproving or questioning our own money. We were elected to serve the interests of the people of British Columbia, each one of us sent here representing a constituency. Taxes are being collected from everyone in the province and it's our responsibility, our opportunity, to question the spending of those funds. We can also argue about the way in which they're raised, but more particularly we question and vote on the spending. That's a right we should never give up freely or willingly. Certainly the opposition will never, whatever opposition it is, give up freely and/or willingly the right to control the spending of public funds. It's a black day for British Columbia when a government comes in and wants to take that right, in part, away from the Legislature.

I have to ask the question again, Mr. Speaker. If it starts in Bill 4 with taking away the right to spend $600 million, although we haven't provided the balance of the money, what we are really doing in this bill is giving the minister the right to spend $110 million in the first year and the balance of $490 million in the next two years. We don't know who that minister is going to be in those two years. We don't even know who it's going to be this year, the way things have been happening. And we don't even know what administration is going to be in office one, two and three years from now. Nevertheless, this bill is giving that minister the right to spend $600 million by a certain time limit, over a period of three years, and he need only come back to the Legislature up to two years later to say what has happened to it.

"The B.C. Social Credit leader, at a noisy Vancouver party rally which he said launched a provincewide tour against restrictions on debate of government estimates, challenged delegates at this weekend's provincial NDP convention to censure Premier David Barrett." As I said earlier, I would like to challenge the Social Credit members in the House to discuss it with their Premier.

I don't really expect them to vote against him, that would be asking too much. But I would like them to discuss it, and try to find out what is the rationale for having switched from the position that he held so firmly — at least publicly — just ten and a half years ago, to the position that he apparently now has. Although he hasn't spoken on this, he must have given his support or it would never have reached this stage. Why has he changed? Or did he change? Was it just lip service he was paying to democracy in 1975? Did he have any feeling at all for the rights of MLAs, for their obligations and responsibilities? Or was he simply playing politics in 1975? If he had any feeling at all, what has happened to it in the ensuing ten and a half years? Is it that power corrupts? And is it that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Does he feel that as long as he and his administration are in office, anything goes, that anything they do must be right by virtue of the fact that they do it?

It reminds me of a Social Credit cabinet minister in the previous administration whom I heard say in this very chamber one day: "I never tell a lie, and even if at times I do tell a lie, it's the truth because I said it; so it must be true." It would

[ Page 8265 ]

seem to me that that's the kind of attitude we have here. It was wrong for government to try to spend a dime without debate in 1975, according to the then leader of the opposition. But it's okay for a government today to say that one minister may have the absolute and total control to spend $600 million without debate. Those two positions are totally irreconcilable. I think we should have some explanation from the Premier as to how he would try to reconcile those two different positions.

[3:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

"I pledge the right Dave Barrett denies us as opposition we will grant to the NDP in opposition. We will give them their full right to discussion." As I say, that's one campaign promise he kept. But now they're taking it away — in spades. They've given us the right to discuss ten cents in spending as long as we want. To a point; the Chairman, of course, has to exercise some control. But there are no time limits. As long as we can make it sound different, we can discuss ten cents in spending as long as we want. But when it comes to $600 million, we're limited as to the amount of time that we can spend. I can spend two hours, my colleagues can spend half an hour each. If every one of them spoke we can spend 14.5 hours discussing this bill and that's the end of it, except for what the government members might do. Fourteen and a half hours and we are then in the position of voting on spending $600 million over which we'll have no control. One person will have total control of that fund. And yet they weren't prepared to let the NDP administration spend a dime without debate.

"The opposition leader announced his intention Wednesday to abandon his seat in the Legislature to publicly campaign over the right to debate about $2 billion." Well, that was his choice at the time.

Continuing on with the report of this meeting: "'I have an answer to the Premier of this province,' said the opposition leader. 'I have an answer to the Premier who accuses us of being frivolous, who accuses us of anarchy. Anarchy never, but freedom forever."' That's a very high-sounding phrase: "Anarchy never, but freedom forever." We're losing freedom when we vote in favour of this bill. Members on the government side still have an opportunity and still have time, and I believe still have an obligation to get to the government benches and persuade them to hold this bill back, because once they vote for it they have, for the next three years, given whoever happens to be the Minister of Education the right to spend $600 million. They won't have the right to question that minister, whatever side of the House they happen to be on. They won't have that right. They will have given it up. Today they are making that decision, and I would urge them to think carefully. While they might have some confidence or at least might want to show some confidence in the present Minister of Education, are they as convinced that they will have the same level of confidence in whoever follows the current Minister of Education? Because they are tying the hands for some three years down the road. They should think about that. Anarchy never, but freedom forever. Even they, I think, would want to have the freedom in year two and year three to question the spending of this fund, to vote on it.

"The Leader of the Opposition said the new rules would require passing"" — that's not relevant, really — "at the rate of $6,500 per second." I haven't worked this out in dollars per second.

"The right of discussion and debate are the modern equivalent of what people went to war and fought for." Well, some of us actually have been around long enough to have taken part in the last war, and that was one of the things we were convinced of at the time, that we were fighting for freedom and for the rights of members in the House. Some of as were convinced of that at the time, and of course the Premier brought that up, although he wasn't personally involved — he just wasn't old enough at the time, or he was lucky not to be old enough. In any case, that war was fought, ostensibly, politically, to preserve freedom, just as was the first world war.

"It is a freedom that was won, and we will never lose it freely or willingly." Well, Mr. Speaker, we thought it was won. I like to think that the present Premier who fought that campaign in 1975 believed, when the election results became known in December 1975, that he had won a battle. I would like to think he believed that. I might have believed it up until this bill was presented, because over and over I have to keep coming back to the fact that he was concerned about legislative authority to debate every dime, and now he is prepared to support legislative authority to give one minister the right to spend $600 million. Again, I would like to ask that the Premier reconcile his position to those two positions in the Legislature.

"We say not one dime without debate, and we mean not one ten-cent piece.'" Mr. Speaker, if today's Premier were the same person who was speaking to the people of British Columbia in 1975, then the Premier would stand up in this House today in division and vote against this proposal from the government. I don't see how he could possibly reconcile the positions. He would have to oppose this principle to spend not a dime but $600 million without debate.

Another story from the Sun, "Not A Dime Without Debate, Bennett Vows," is a different story, and it is a different reporter. "An indignant Leader of the Opposition vowed Wednesday never to freely or willingly surrender the Legislature's right to control the public purse." Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about. We are retaining the right to control some expenditures from the public purse; they're not taking it all away. But if they get away with $600 million in this bill and $1.2 billion in another bill and $70 million in another bill that's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger, we're told.... If we give them the authority for all that this year, where are we going to be next year? Once they have started down that road, where are they stopping? What estimates will actually come before us? Just innocuous things that no one is terribly interested in that can't get the government embarrassed at all? Will they take out of estimates everything over which they want to exercise total and complete political control and put it all into bills and use such high-sounding phrases as "excellence in education"? "This is not politics. We are doing it because we want to improve the quality of education. We don't trust the school boards. We don't trust the college boards. We don't trust the university councils. We're going to put all of that responsibility and authority in the hands of a minister. And if we are going to do that, we don't have to debate it in the House. We've picked the person that we believe is best qualified to deliver the best educational system, to decide where the money should be spent, so why bother electing school boards? Why bother appointing college councils, except to provide havens for Social Crediters? Why bother appointing or naming university governors and senate members and all that kind of thing? Why bother with

[ Page 8266 ]

all that? Let's just bring in a bill giving one minister after another the authority to spend as much money as we think that ministry might best use during an election campaign, and then ultimately a bill that would give the Minister of Finance the authority to do all the spending."

Once you go down that road, Mr. Speaker, where do you stop? The Leader of the Opposition in 1975 said we had to stop at the point of one dime — that we couldn't go beyond one dime, because that was going too far. If you could spend that one dime without debate, then it was so much easier to spend twenty-five cents, a dollar or a million dollars. But if you would accept the principle that the members in the House have to have the unfettered right to question, to criticize and to propose with respect to the spending of everything that the ministers are intending to do; if you accept that as a principle of parliamentary democracy; if you accept the idea that opposition members and caucus members on the other side of the House have the right and the obligation and must have the responsibility to ask these same questions, to keep asking them in the hope of getting answers, even though you protect the minister by saying he or she doesn't have to answer, then where are we going to go? Either we have the right to question all expenditures, to vote on all expenditures, or what's the point in saying that you have the right to question some but not others?

It's a dangerous road that we're going down when we say that ministers will have the right to control expenditures of these amounts. Petty cash funds I could see: where do you draw the line on them? But when you start with a sum of $600 million and say that one person should have the right to decide where, when and in what amount those funds are going to be spent — that person makes that decision entirely on his own, according to this legislation — then I suggest it's a dangerous road we're starting on. I have to ask: if the province of British Columbia is going to continue under a Social Credit administration for any length of time, how far are we going, and what point is there in having even 57 MLAs, let alone 69 if the members in the House are simply going to hand over to the government the right to control spending?

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in 1975 said we were starting down a dangerous road when he argued against the spending of one one dime without debate. I suggest we're taking a very long leap along that road when we give to the Minister of Education the right to spend $600 million and say to him only: "Come back and tell us a couple of years after you've spent it what you did with it."

I cannot support Bill 4. As much as I appreciate the actions of some school boards, of college councils, of universities, in coming cap in hand to ministers and asking for contributions from this fund to try to maintain something by way of quality of education, which has been seriously under attack, I submit for political reasons, for the last three years in the province of British Columbia.... I support that. I don't question the fact that they are doing it in what they believe to be the best interests of education. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I can't vote for this legislation. I think if the members on the other side of the House were to consider for one moment the seriousness of what they're doing and the question of just how far they might be going, there might be some of them who will ask questions in caucus, who will question whether or not they really are doing the right thing in this instance.

The previous Social Credit leader used to say on many occasions that he was prepared to take a second look. I would urge the government to take a second look at this legislation, because today democracy in British Columbia — democracy in the form of the MLAs' right to question, to vote against expenditures if they don't like them — is being seriously challenged. This is important legislation in that sense. I think it would do the government nothing but good if it were to change its mind on this, take a second look and decide that this is not the way for a democratic government in the province of British Columbia to be conducting their financial affairs. Mr. Speaker, I urge the members to persuade their government to withdraw this legislation.

[3:45]

But in the meantime, in the event that they don't, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), that the motion for second reading of Bill 4, intituled Education Excellence Appropriation Act, be amended by deleting all the words following the word "that" and substituting therefore the following: "...It is not in keeping with proper fiscal policy and educational policy to have funds for education expended other than through the normal budgets of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education." I move that motion, Mr. Speaker.

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: Of course, I'm speaking in favour of the amendment, because it seems to us that the government is proceeding rapidly in just the opposite direction to which it should be going. It self-righteously pounds its chest about democracy while striking at the very root of it. It introduces educational experts from all across Canada in a question period. I don't understand how they had the brass to do that, when everybody knows that what this government has done to education in B.C. Is unparalleled anywhere else in Canada. To bring experts from all across Canada to have a look at this is, I think, the height of gall and brass. I wouldn't like to say "stupidity," but I think it's the height of ignorance.

Mr. Speaker, what the amendment essentially calls for is to have the Legislature vet, examine and question any expenditure raised from the taxpayers of this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With the member's permission, Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I did not hear the Chair rule whether the amendment was in order or not.

MR. LAUK: I looked it over, and it's in order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's reassuring, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has not ruled yet, but debate may continue.

MR. ROSE: I find that the Minister of Finance seems to have a habit of doing that every time I get started on something. I don't know whether he wants to stop me in full flight; whether he's concerned by the eloquence of my oratory; whether he's afraid I might convince the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) to vote against the government. I really don't know what he's fearful about. He often questions what I say, or maybe a motion, as soon as I get started. I

[ Page 8267 ]

wouldn't do that to him, although I know he shouts "Question" before anybody even gets a question out of their mouths during question period. I'll leave that for now.

What I was attempting to say is that the Legislature, not the Minister of Education, not the Minister of Forests and not the Minister of Health, should be deciding upon the expenditure of funds in those various areas — education, forestry and health. The motion says: let's go back to democracy; let's go back to sanity; let's stop this playing around and porkbarrelling with the people's money, just to perpetuate your incompetent selves in office for another 20 years or so. I don't think people are going to buy this. You may think you've fooled them — maybe you have. I think of P.T. Barnum and lots of other people when I think of a certain quote. But maybe you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Is that a draft?

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little concerned that we're having a triplication of the excellence fund for colleges, the extra $12.7 million for colleges which was introduced last year as part of the college budget, under special and central control of the Minister of Education. Now we have it in health. Now we have it in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. Now we have it again in forestry — and not because it didn't work, but because it did. This beautiful $12.7 million package of pork chops produced — and I hate to use this word, but I paid so much for my education — a plethora of press releases, 42 of them, with smirking ministers snipping ribbons and passing out, in concert with the local member.... They didn't do it in my riding, but they did it in other ridings — as a propaganda piece. So we had $12.7 million taken away from the regular college funding last year and put into a special fund. I don't know whether it produced excellence, or what it did, but it certainly produced 42 press releases, and that's had the desired effect. Now we've got $70 million for silviculture. That's kind of a pipedream, because we don't know whether the municipalities or the unions, once burned, are going to do it again. We've got a Health Improvement Appropriation Act. "there's another $720 million to be decided on, mainly by the Minister of Health — more pork.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: "Oink, oink" across the way.

Now we've got the fund for educational excellence — $110 million. For what purpose? For excellence? I don't know about that excellence stuff. When I think of what excellent things they've spent the money on.... Fixing leaky roofs is one; adding to increment salary grants — that's another, and I'll go through the whole list of them if you like; $7.3 million yesterday or the day before on college spending, which still isn't enough. The whole thing is a crass political propaganda trick in an attempt to convince the public that they're doing something about education. "Excellence" is beautiful. What a buzzword! Nobody could have asked for nicer buzzwords than excellence in education. It's not going to wash.

Here we have from Vanderhoof what I would regard as a left-wing editorial. It says here in the Express-Bugle, from Mr. Kempf's riding: "Excellence dollars should fund the districts. The provincial government is ignoring districts in dire need of additional funding by not utilizing its Excellence in Education fund to finance budget overruns."

MR. LAUK: Jack Kempf?

MR. ROSE: No, he didn't say that. That's in his riding.

MR. LAUK: He got hit on the head on the weekend.

MR. ROSE: Well, let's leave his problems. He's got all kinds of problems, the least of which is being hit on the head.

MR. LAUK: He was hit there, and he wasn't injured.

MR. ROSE: Well, at least the Coquihalla got off with a bang. It seems to me that the member for Vancouver Centre is always in the House when I'm speaking, and is not always the greatest of help.

Anyway, carrying on from this editorial, it seems strange that school boards throughout B.C. are crying for additional funding while this $110 million is sitting idle. Well, it's not sitting idle; we haven't even passed the legislation. We've spent over half of it; we've spent $70 million already on excellent.... What — excellent bus routes, excellent teaching instruction? No, on salaries and some of the other things, and maintenance that we've had to clean up after three years of neglect.

The editorial goes on: "The provincial government, according to the press release, wants to use the fund for textbooks and special programs." Of course they do, because they got caught with their hand in the till, finding that they cut their textbook budget in half. Where we needed in excess of $22 million, they were only going to spend $11 million, which meant certain courses couldn't go ahead. Contracts with publishers couldn't proceed; preparations for new curricula and programs could not be implemented, so they put it back.

Where did they get it? Out of the educational excellence fund. Why shouldn't they? They stole it from school funds to begin with, so of course that's happened. The editorial says that 69 out of 71 boards around B.C. have submitted adequate needs budgets. You know what that means, Mr. Speaker. Adequate needs budgets means that they cannot function to the level of quality of education that they perceive they need as elected trustees, because the fiscal framework ordered and centralized and controlled by the czar of education in Victoria does not provide sufficient funds.

We've got a three-tiered education system, right? Tears are all in the eyes of the taxpayer; that's where the three tears come from — times maybe 72 or 73.

"Sixty-one of 79 can't get by on the framework budget and are demanding the government fund them through the excellence fund." Gee, it's hard to get up and talk against giving boards money. I can see where some government member is going to say: "What are you talking about? Why are you opposed to this? Why are you opposed to giving boards money through the excellence fund? I thought you wanted it. For the last three years you've been screaming about more money for schools. Why are you fighting us here?" You know, you can't shoot Santa Claus; you're not supposed to do that. We're doing it because we don't believe the minister should be responsible for the distribution of the funds and have no adequate legislative check on how those

[ Page 8268 ]

funds are spent. We have no guarantee whatsoever that these funds will not be used as favours in certain districts. We have no guarantee that they will not be squandered in some areas, not because of the needs of the district but because of the needs of the incumbent MLA who wants to become elected or re-elected.

That's why we're opposed to it. We're opposed to it because it strikes at the very heart of what democracy is — to have the government examined fully by the opposition. That is parliamentary democracy. If you take that away, what have you got left? You've got a charade here. You've got a showboat. You've got a bunch of high-priced people who sit around and babble and don't do anything about properly examining a piece of the people's business.

Now whether they want to do it or not is beside the point. The point is that they should have the right to do it, and they shouldn't have those funds squirreled away in the Ministry of Health for the Minister of Health to throw around to his friends or enemies or colleagues, or the Minister of Forests, or the Minister of Education, regardless of how much....

Are the teachers and the colleges going to want to apply for these funds for innovative programs? Of course they are. Universities and colleges sometimes even go to the CIA to get funds for research of various kinds. They're scrambling for funds, these institutions, because they have been systematically starved. Now we come along, and we've got this government that's going to give these people all this wonderful money, accompanied by 42 press releases at least per every $12 million.

Going back to the editorial: "Pleas for additional funding appear to fall on deaf ears. The money is there, but it's not going where it is most needed. School boards will most likely turn to the residential taxpayer to make up for any budget shortfall, a move most trustees said they are reluctant to make." I'll bet they are. You're darned right they're reluctant to make it.

We just debated Bill 12. The first tier is what the framework provides. The second tier is what the local residential taxpayer will provide, and that's what this editorial is talking about. The third one is the educational excellence fund. But according to the minister's own government report, just to maintain the status quo in public education — not post-secondary — you need $128 million. The ministry said that they needed that. The experts within the ministry said: "In order to maintain the status quo, we have to have $128 million." Did we do that? No. The framework delivered $128 million short of the status quo. So where are the teachers and the principals and the schools and the boards going to make up that difference? They're going to go to the local taxpayer. The school board trustees are reluctant to make those demands, but isn't it interesting that the framework delivers something like $128 million less than we need, and the excellence fund provides $110 million? They're pretty close, those two.

I know some people will say: "You don't know the difference — typical Socialist mathematics — between $110 million and $128 million. You guys over there couldn't run a pushcart." That's what you're going to say. The point is that those figures are alarmingly and shockingly similar. Why? Because that's where the shortfall came from. It went from the shortfall delivered by the framework into the excellence fund. That's where it has gone. The difference will probably be made up by the taxpayer and the local homeowner based on a very small tax base. But I've gone into that before, and I'm not going to go into that again.

Here's the crucial point in the editorial from the Vanderhoof Express-Bugle. It says....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, there really is. I didn't make this up. There really is such a newspaper up in Vanderhoof, not notably the most left-wing area in the province — you can ask the member from Omineca. It's not the most left-wing ridding in the world, but I think that it's learning.

[4:00]

"Perhaps the government has already taken notice of this by designating $9 million for teacher funding out of the...." I guess that's really what he's talking about, improving teaching; that's a little more teacher-bashing here. "That is basically a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount of money in the fund." Here is the crucial point; this, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, is what our amendment addresses itself to, and this is the concluding part of the editorial: "The best thing that could happen to education since 1982 would be for the Education ministry to use the money to provide school districts with the additional funds they require to keep services at an equal level." That's what we should be doing in our educational policy, not these little gimmicks, these little propaganda pieces that the ministry dreams up all the time.

To sum up briefly our major objections to it, I said, I think — and repeated what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said a little while ago....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)?

MR. ROSE: He's over at the major educational conference, I'm told. He's going to lead the world and tell everybody in Canada and the world how great the B.C. education system is since 1982. Or else he's presiding at a wake for the same. I'm not certain. Anyway, he's not here on this very important educational bill, and perhaps he should be. I don't think it makes any difference anyway, because I don't think that he determines educational policy. I'm sorry if that shocks you that I say this, but I've felt for a long time that we've had one minister that got into trouble and that leopard couldn't change its spots. You couldn't launder him so he's acceptable anymore, so you send him into Forestry. Change the leopard. Now we've got the new leopard but the same old spots, so you have the same old policy. So I don't think that he makes policy. I don't think that any of them make policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: A leper?

MR. ROSE: No, not a leper, a leopard! Lepers don't have spots, necessarily; none that I know do. Anyway, to corn an old phrase: there is no point in talking to the monkey when the organ grinder is making all the decisions. That's the problem.

Here are some of our major objections, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you'll be interested in these as major objections to the excellence fund. First of all, these funds are to be allocated on a merit basis. Where are the guidelines? Who determines what is merit? Is merit something that's there

[ Page 8269 ]

because the incumbent MLA might be in trouble and therefore needs a shot in the arm and a few more press releases for himself? Is that what merit really means?

Permissiveness is the next thing. The member for Nanaimo said this. The bill says that the funds may not be used.... Now we've got $110 million this year and over the next three years, depending upon who the minister is.... Wouldn't it be a shocker is a minister of another administration had control over this $600 million fund? What would we do about it then? He might be moved to do a little political propaganda himself, but I don't think he would. We're opposed in principle to that kind of an arrangement, so of course he wouldn't do that. The funds may not be spent if the cabinet decides it needs more money elsewhere. The cabinet might well decide it needs money for some other important purpose, so it might take it out of the excellence fund. That's something we should all consider.

It says here that the objectives are ill-defined. Other education-related items could be anything. What are other education items, mentioned first of all by the Premier on.... I've forgotten the date, but I think it was around February 15 — near Valentine's day anyway. I've got it down here, but if you don't remember.... You forget a lot of things. I don't expect you to remember, you know. What the school boards were saying to the minister on February 14 is that they didn't want an excellence fund. They wanted to send him a valentine, and on it they say: "Now is the time for us to say we love each other so, but we can't feel that way towards you until we get more dough." But they didn't get any more dough, they got a gimmick. They got $110 million taken out of educational funds and tagged to excellence.

The member shakes his head. I don't blame him; he hasn't had a good week. He's had about the same week as Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has had. I think their problem is that they both have the same mindset, and that upsets a lot of people, including me.

Fourth point. There is inadequate base funding: college and university budgets have been frozen. Somebody said — I've got the quote somewhere — "You can't build excellence on quicksand."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Please don't heckle me. I'm a very junior member in this House and you know how it upsets me when I'm heckled. I lose all composure, and that's not good for either of us.

Your grants and framework have been a disaster for most districts. Where did the money come from? The Premier should know where the money comes from. He's certainly a member of Treasury Board. Universities and colleges adjustments fund of last year — $27 million not spent. That's where the money came from. The underfunding of the public school system — $65 million. Cutting books for children — $11 million. Cutting special initiatives, vote 64 — $1.8 million.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Wrong again.

MR. ROSE: Your problem, Mr. Premier, is that you very seldom come in here and enter into these debates as a participant. You come in here and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on the reasoned amendment to Bill 4. The hon. Premier will have his chance on the floor at a later time.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't suggest that you admonish the Premier too much, Mr. Speaker. He's sensitive and he might hold grudges. I'm an old friend of the Premier. One day I almost got run over by a member of his family. I don't know whether he was looking forward to this day or not, but the point is that that's what happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are on the amendment.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, if you continue to permit the Premier to heckle a speaker like this.... I've never seen anything like that before in my life, and I'm not reflecting on the Chair.

Friday, May 16: the presidents of B.C. colleges say they're having to struggle to build schools on financial quicksand. The excellence fund. It goes on to talk about what has happened in the colleges, and I want to do that right now. I'm pleased that the Premier is here. I like to see him here; I don't see him very often. I hardly recognized him when he came in. He's running around snipping ribbons and doing all this other stuff.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Chair will know that we have an amendment with respect to Bill 4 in second reading. I fail to see what that has to do with other members of the Legislature who are present today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your point of order. The member will speak to the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I think the Minister of Finance is probably trying to become Speaker. I notice he's practising these points of order all the time, and he's usually dead wrong. It's a little green book. You'll see it in your desk there, and you can be a little bit more precise. It's new and it's all.... We've just done the parliamentary reform and I would recommend it to you. The colleague right behind you was chairing on that great document. Some of us assisted, so we do know a little bit about it.

Where did the money come from? I've already been over it. Where is it going? Excellence, okay? Non-salary inflation. Is that excellence? Twenty-four million bucks non-salary. This is what we've spent so far. University operating budgets — operating budgets; what's that got to do with excellence? — $5.6. Another $7.5 to universities generally. I don't know what that was for, but it was probably not tied to any particular grant or project. But would we know? We wouldn't know anyway. How would we ever find out what it was used for two years down the road? We would have no idea what that money is going to be spent for. Then $4.4 college operating; $6.2 student aid. A big deal — $6.2 million in student aid. You know what the student aid budget figure was, Mr. Speaker, the year of restraint, the year before? It was $22 million. You have taken $50 million out of student aid over the last four years and you've given back $6.2 million. And you want applause? You should be ashamed of yourself. You should hang your head in shame and

[ Page 8270 ]

read the standing orders, or something. Do something to improve your mind.

When he spoke, the Finance minister said he wants to help the best students. Where? In West Point Grey? Because there's no access if you increase the fees of colleges by 30 percent. If you make it so 7 percent of the kids from the interior can go on to university or post-secondary, and 15 percent of the kids who live in West Van or Point Grey, and if you increase their fees 30 percent, you cut out student aid, you cancel courses, you get classes larger — and you want to help the best students? What a laughable thing. Who wrote that speech for you anyway — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)? That's just nonsense, absolute drivel, poppycock. I can't tell you how bad it is.

Then $6.6 million for textbooks. With $22 million in the budget for textbooks, you cut it to $11 million, give $11 million to the excellence fund, then when you get caught at it, what do you do? What do you do then? You put $6.6 million back. Again, that's supposed to be an admirable thing to do. You got caught. That's all that happened: you just got caught at it. We have $3.3 million for BCIT programs. What are the guidelines for that? Nineteen million dollars for salaries. Somebody forgot that the teachers and the school boards have increment contracts. They forgot that, so they had to give them $19 million. Now another one yesterday: $7.3 million for colleges. It adds up to about $70 million.

Where is the improved teaching? Where are the innovative programs? Where is anything? All you've done is fix a few leaky roofs. You've tried to make up for the fact that you've savaged education, and you bring all these experts in from all over the country. You should be ashamed of yourself: there isn't a province that's been operating like this. Certainly not anyone that I think is worthwhile.

Even Alberta: look at how bad Alberta is. Alberta has done nothing like that. "While B.C. has endured reductions, Alberta colleges have received hikes of more than 5 percent for two years running," said John Waters, president of the College-Institute Educators' Association in the Vancouver Sun, May 16.

And here's what our old friend, a guy who really tried, did. There was a really innovative guy named Bruce Fraser up at Malaspina. What he did was excellent, true excellence. What he did was that he had a lot of innovative programs having to do with training of Pacific Rim students. He made money on those programs and put it into his budget. He just wasn't hanging around with his hand out. Other people have done the same thing. Douglas College is another example of that. The one in Prince George is another example. But do you know what Bruce Fraser did? He quit yesterday or the day before. He quit. He couldn't stand it anymore. "The resignation Thursday of Malaspina College president Bruce Fraser over financing shortages is the most dramatic move in a year that has already seen presidents take a collective stand for their institutions." So the presidents have to get together; they have to gang up. They have to come and supplicate. What a position to put a president in. He has to come and beg for money enough to run his institution. That's absolutely shameful, outrageous, shocking, dismaying even, and I don't think that we should.... Why isn't there somebody in education in the ministry fighting for education, instead of fighting education? That's what I'd like to know. I think that is unacceptable.

"College heads tell of struggle. Figures tell tale of excellence funds." I don't have to go on to prove the point. I did a little thing the other day on the dropout figures. You know, only about 35 to 40 percent of our kids ever get through school in this province. They drop out. There's a financial advantage to their dropping out. I've got a correspondent here from Sooke, and what he has to say is this: "Looking at the matter from a financial point of view, the loss of 100 students appears to save the school board approximately $300,000 and reduces the pupil-teacher ratio in grades 11 and 12." Now are kids being driven out of our schools? It sounds to me like that is what's happening. They don't have enough counselling; their classes are too large. You've narrowed the curriculum to the point where only the academics.... "Teach the best and shoot the rest;" that's the attitude. "We want the best students to go on." That's not acceptable.

[4:15]

I'm quoting here from, I believe the source is, the Toronto Star:

"The real tragedy is that the fate of these young men and women can be predicted in mid-elementary school. Kids who start failing and falling behind in early grades, whether for physical, social or intellectual reasons, most often do not overcome their difficulties, unless there are compensating factors or extenuating circumstances. Make-work and skills training programs may be important remedies for unskilled or uninterested youth, but we really need a major commitment by our society to young children starting on that spiral of self-defeat."

I think that all of us, if we can be fair-minded about it for a moment, are really concerned about the fact that there are many young people in our society who could make contributions; but because there are no jobs for them, because their educational support and servicing is unacceptable and, in some cases, non-existent — in certain kinds of talents.... It means we're going to face them later, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), in the courts. We're going to see them in Human Resources, and we're going to see them in other places, which will be far more costly to the state than spending it on education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver South wishes to speak to the amendment?

MR. ROGERS: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before recognizing the member, I will advise the House that the amendment is in order, in that it purports to be declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill. That is clearly stated in the amendment, and for that reason the amendment is found in order. I must caution members, in speaking to the House, that it is the method of expending funds for education that is stated in the amendment, and only that can be debated — only the declaratory principle of the amendment can be debated. With that said, the Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver South.

MR. ROGERS: With that very eloquent ruling, members will now of course wish to take some time to prepare their debate, in order to make sure it's utterly and completely in order on this amendment — which hasn't taken place in the past. On that basis, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 8271 ]

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 33: minister's office, $186,345.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. Before we get into what is probably the most significant issue before us, that involving the countervail announced yesterday in the United States, I think it's important that we put on record that the increase for the Ministry of Forests for the current fiscal year is something like 23 percent. Incorporated within that sum is a significant increase under the heading of silviculture — up 47 percent. Part of that, of course. reflects the third year of the federal-provincial agreement. The amount of the contribution is now $22 million by the province, with an equal sum having been submitted by the federal government. I think that one thing we should keep in mind is that the total amount of the funding is $300 million, divided equally between both levels of government. The federal government is not, as was stated in the House last week, putting in that total sum.

I would like to make a couple of remarks with respect to the current issue. Perhaps l ought to trace a bit of the history, and refresh our memories as to exactly what has happened over a number of years. The first issue came up with respect to the announcement out of Ottawa shortly before the countervail was to be filed — and it was going to be filed in any event; that's abundantly clear, and it became even clearer when we were in Toronto last Thursday. I think we should keep in mind who initiated the concept of the envoy. I think it's very clear to everyone now that it emanated from the federal government. I think that their intentions were sincere in what they attempted to do: to work with the U.S. administration to try to stall the filing of the petition under the U.S. trade laws. The amount and the time given to us was not very significant. When we look at the time for filing, I don't think most people are aware of the fact that before the concept of envoy.... By the time we had arrived in Toronto, they had made reference to the word "representative." So instead of an envoy system, we have a representative system.

What really happened was that the time for filing was running even when we were there. The agreement, from what I understand and was able to extract, is that the time.... There are 20 days, by the way, before a decision is made by the International Trade Commission, and their decision to investigate is usually 20 days after filing. When we were there, the clock was already ticking. It was already ticking, so it became abundantly clear from the position which we have taken that all issues involving free trade and those negotiations are to come from the main table. All of the information which had been passed to us by the federal team and by our reading of the U.S. negotiating team was that everything goes there.

Now, of course, what did we do? We relied upon a letter from the President of the United States. I think it might be worthwhile making reference to it. This letter was dated April 24.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Now I think we ought to have a little bit of support from the member for Vancouver Centre. I recognize that there are not too many forests, but there are a lot of head offices in your riding that you might consider.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I haven't even got started yet.

MR. LAUK: You haven't even started yet? What's going to become of our forests?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I quote the second paragraph of a letter from the President of the United States dated April 24, 1986:

"During Prime Minister Mulroney's recent visit to this country, he and I agreed that we would attempt to initiate comprehensive bilateral trade negotiations between our two nations on a 'clean launch' basis."

So now we know where the words "clean launch" came from.

"We believe it is in the best interests of all of us to have everything on the table when the negotiations begin and to start without preconditions on either side. The clean launch idea is strongly supported by the American business community, for it provides our negotiators with maximum flexibility."

Well, I tell you what: that was not a bad start. However, then what happened was this. On the way back, I come across another letter, and this letter is dated May 8, 1986, and it seems to me there was a turn here of about 180 degrees. May 8, 1986 — again, a letter from the President. This is, by the way, addressed to the chairman of the Senate finance committee, who is the Hon. Bob Packwood, senator from the state of Oregon:

"Thank you again for your forceful efforts in preserving our fast-track proposal for a Canada free-trade agreement. Once again, I want you to know that I am committed to finding a rapid and effective solution to the Canadian softwood lumber problem which restores for the American lumber industry a fair opportunity to compete. To this end, I intend to press for an expedited resolution to this problem independent of the comprehensive negotiations. If this cannot be achieved through bilateral negotiations with Canada, then I will take such action as may be necessary to resolve this problem consistent with U.S. law.

"We fully realize that lumber and other pending trade irritants must be resolved before we submit to the Senate the results of the comprehensive negotiations."

Now that last paragraph would indicate that there may be some degree of flexibility.

I want to mention something that happened in 1983. The International Trade Commission came up....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Remember, countervail has been with us for years and years. During question period today, we know.... That member for Vancouver Centre

[ Page 8272 ]

has been around here a long time, so he should be able to go back and remember 1962. It's a long time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In 1983 the International Trade Commission said the following....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) could wait. Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate your humour, but it is not in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In 1983 two words were used by the International Trade Commission. As far as Canadian softwood is concerned, there is no subsidy, nor was there any discrimination. Now why did they say "no discrimination"? Because there are U.S. Interests in Canada who are involved in the softwood business; and in addition to that, it is open for anybody in the world to do business in our country.

The largest trade inquiry in the history of the United States occurred in 1982-83. Who was on that tribunal? Who created it? The U.S. created the tribunal that heard it, and all the chairs were filled by U.S. citizens. So I'm beginning to wonder, as everybody else is, with respect to the politics that are occurring now, after we have just been through the most intensive investigation and hearing in the history of the U.S. as far as their trade law is concerned. That occurred. Their decision came out and it was quite clear. As the Department of Commerce stated in May 1983:

"We believe that a comparison of Canadian stumpage prices with the U.S. prices would be arbitrary and capricious in view of the following:

"(1) the wide differences between species and composition; the difference between size, quality and density of timber; the matter of terrain and accessibility of the standing timber throughout the United States and Canada;

"(2) the additional payments which are required in many provinces in Canada but not generally in the United States;

"(3) the fact that in recent years prices in the national forests in the United States have been bid anywhere from two to five years in advance of cut, without taking into account the fluctuations and demand for lumber;

"(4) the fact that in recent years the U.S. Forest Service has restricted the supply of timber in certain national forests due to budgetary and environmental constraints."

Another point that everybody seems to have forgotten about is with respect to the stumpage system within the United States. Mr. Chairman, you know that we based our entire system on the U.S. Forest Service. Secondly, within the boundaries of the United States themselves, the variation in stumpage rates goes anywhere from $8 to $100 — within the United States, depending on whether it's east, west of the Rockies, the Pacific Northwest or in the southern portion. The variation in stumpage within their own country is very significant.

Now one of the concerns that seems to have been raised, and why we believe it's the responsibility of the federal government to negotiate.... We know very well that the province cannot turn around and negotiate on international trade matters. It's country-to-country.

MR. LAUK: Well, put pressure on the federal government. You're playing patsy to Mulroney.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am wondering whether or not they have read the telex forwarded to the Prime Minister by the Premier, as I am sure there have been a number of other discussions, and that makes it abundantly clear and makes reference to the commitment by the Prime Minister of our country that all issues will be on the table. What are we going to do, hive off lumber? Lumber today — we're going to have wheat tomorrow, and hogs the day after.

[4:30]

MR. LAUK: Do you agree with free trade?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You bet I agree with free trade. It's in the interests of free trade.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. I appreciate that it's been a while since I've been in the Chair, and I appreciate the fact that this particular minister always elicits this kind of cross-court banter. He responds very easily to cross-court banter. However, I believe if the member for Vancouver East will check his schedule for his afternoon activities, and the member for Vancouver Centre will wait his turn, then we can proceed with this thing in a rather orderly fashion.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Vancouver Centre will probably be departing shortly because of his flight schedule, so perhaps we'll move along if he'd be so courteous as to give me a little bit of time.

One of the issues that comes up is that we cannot stop, by law, the U.S. lumber interests and their coalition from filing any petition available to them — I repeat, under their own trade laws. That's available to them at all times. It was readily apparent that that's exactly what was going to occur. We can't stop legislation, certain manifestations of the Gibbons bill which is before the Congress. That's something over which the President has a veto.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now one of the issues that I recall here last week was that members of the opposition were concerned about the envoy system. They didn't know whether to support it or reject it. You can't have it both ways. It became abundantly clear that we don't negotiate with our entire tax regime with certain vested interests in another country. This is done government-to-government. Now tell me, why do we really want that type of intervention with respect to an envoy? The implication is that we've got something to negotiate. First of all an envoy or representative system — as they referred to it in Toronto last Thursday night — is contrary to the concept of free trade and, I repeat, the clean launch, which was advocated by both national leaders. Secondly, normal trade remedies are still

[ Page 8273 ]

available to our friends in the south, and we know that to be the case. We knew it when we arrived, and the time was already ticking. Thirdly, it seems to me that setting up an envoy or representative system undermines the spirit of free trade and commitment that everything goes to the main bargaining table. It gives to the U.S. an undue advantage even before negotiations begin, and by acknowledging what may come out as being a valid alternative by implication makes us appear as though we concede on a major commodity before we get started, and that's for political reasons only, because surely our laws haven't changed and those in the U.S. haven't changed. Why suddenly is there this great interest under a countervail again after the largest trade hearing in the history of the U.S.? Why suddenly is it resurrected?

I came up with the following, and what the implications are going to be. In the case of softwood, we would be, by implication, telling our citizens that our ability to efficiently produce softwood is not good enough in the international marketplace. Now I'll tell you why I feel pretty strongly about that particular statement. It's because in the northern and southern interior of British Columbia I well remember the aggressiveness of U.S. Interests — home-builders primarily, lumber-yards and shippers — who were saying: "Get your mills up to speed in British Columbia. Invest money. Make them more efficient, and we'll take everything that you can deliver." Well, what do you know: that's exactly what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's exactly what happened. Now I recognize that there may be a shortage of mills in your particular riding, but there certainly isn't in the interior and the north, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: There's a shortage of grey matter in the minister right now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would have expected a better sort of response than that from the member for Vancouver Centre. He's much more capable than that sort of retort.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw that and substitute "naivety."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I see.

Mr. Chairman, one of the important things here is this: normally there is a request for what is referred to as "standstill." That's well understood between parties on both sides of the border — "standstill." The concern I have is this: if we — that is the federal government — cannot negotiate a "standstill" right now, being the first item up for negotiation, where are we going? That gives me some concern. So I think the federal government understands that item and will recognize the significance of it to all people in British Columbia.

I don't think we should lose sight of the fact, either, that there is a very significant interest in the United States that is very receptive to our products. I think it's going to become much clearer as the days roll into weeks and months, because it's a simple fact that we cut back — if we ever did — on our exports between two nations which have the largest exchange of commerce of any two countries in the world; I'm told that it's something around $168 billion annually. There's got to be some understanding at the table where free trade is going to be discussed. Senators in the United States and congressmen in the House of Representatives understand that, and well. This letter I have in front of me dated April 21 is one of many, and the concern which they are expressing in a letter to the United States trade representative is that it's of benefit to both countries to expand the North American market. What we want is access for each other's goods into an area where there is considerable purchasing power. Secondly, their point is that there has got to be a breakdown of the tariff and nontariff barriers that inhibit the softwood trade between the two countries.

"In the course of those discussions we urge you to resist any effort to impose restrictions on Canadian imports. Limitations on Canadian wood products imports, whether legislated or negotiated, would come at great cost to American workers and consumers. A reduction in competition in the forest products industry will increase the price of lumber and will raise costs for U.S. home-builders, construction and manufactured-housing companies. Jobs will be lost in these industries as well as those which handle timber products — railroads, truckers, stevedoring companies, wholesale and retail lumber dealers, and others."

Mr. Chairman, it was pointed out to me the other day that the amount of freight running on U.S. railroads, with respect to certain areas, involves about 20 percent of their volume.

With respect to shakes and shingles, we're hoping to have a decision on this. It's our understanding that by law it must be made on or before May 24.

It's very clear, when you review the items which were raised, that for every job protected in the U.S. In that particular area, four others are lost. By the U.S.'s own calculations, every increase of $1,000 for one residential unit eliminates the application of 300,000 U.S. citizens for home-ownership. I think the people and the politicians in the U.S. are very much aware of that.

"In addition, restrictions on key Canadian exports such as lumber could be the first shot in a trade war" — and the authors of this statement are a number of U.S. congressmen — "in which significant U.S. exporters to Canada, — from citrus and agricultural interests to high technology companies producing computers, aircraft and office equipment, stand to lose an important and expanding market.

"Moreover, the issue of wood products cannot be allowed to overshadow the larger interests of hundreds of U.S. industries that stand to benefit from a reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade between the U.S. and Canada that we will pursue in the upcoming negotiations.

"We believe the free trade agreement negotiations will benefit both countries. In contrast, restrictions such as those proposed on lumber will only serve to start a vicious cycle of job losses and retaliatory measures on both sides of the border, and certainly have a negative effect on the FTA negotiations.

"We urge you to keep these points in mind during the lumber consultations."

It's not as if there are not people in the United States of America who are very concerned about our.... We are not without some support.

[ Page 8274 ]

I'm glad that my critic has arrived, because we waited and waited....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's not here yet.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, what has been going on in forest management. It requires a significant number of dollars. The first thing is that there is a 23 percent lift in the Ministry of Forests budget. Secondly, the amount attributable to the silvicultural program has had a lift of about 47 percent. That's fairly significant. I would also mention that our objective, as you know, is to increase planting up to 200 million seedlings annually. I have to say that that is a significant accomplishment. When you look at up to a billion seedlings over five years.... Hopefully they all grow; I've learned that that's not without its difficulties either.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know why I seem to be intriguing the Leader of the Opposition. I don't ever recall interrupting....

MR. SKELLY: You were really prepared for this, weren't you?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, as a matter of fact. I'm concerned that I have a lot of notes here, but you don't particularly care for the notes.

I would say that planting a billion seedlings over five years is a pretty significant effort, when you consider what went on during the previous five or ten years — which may include another administration.

[4:45]

I think what I'm going to do, Mr. Chairman.... The most significant issue to me right now is, of course, the advent of the countervail. You can rest assured that the Council of Forest Industries is taking a lead on behalf of the federal government and the Department of External Affairs, and is spending a great deal of time on it. I want you to know that they were a touch upset, knowing full well at the time that the clock was ticking and they didn't have a copy of the petition. That petition arrived in their offices, I suspect either last night or this morning, because it arrived in my office about noon today. So I presume they are now briefing and will again put a major push.... I hope that we can win again on the merits of our case and that the U.S. administration will divorce the politics and the rhetoric which has been running unchecked for some time. If you don't believe what I say, then take the time to read both the senatorial and congressional speeches. You'll soon find that a number of people have, l think, been given incorrect information. That's probably a kind way of putting it. That's a major item.

I look forward in the next several weeks to hearing what the opposition is going to say. I'm looking forward to some constructive suggestions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Constructive suggestions. As a matter of fact, the other day the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) raised a few concerns. Even though I've been travelling over the last little while, I was still able to meet with a tree-planter and get some on-site experience to find out exactly what his view of the universe is.

In closing, I'd like to say thanks very much to the Leader of the Opposition, who I believe sent a letter or telegram to the district municipality of Mackenzie on its twentieth anniversary. I want you to know that Mackenzie was well represented that evening. I was able to be with them during their anniversary and present them with a birthday gift.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paid for it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The people of British Columbia know where to invest their money. I'm sorry it's not the gentleman directly behind the Leader of the Opposition, but they were very pleased with it. Having said that, I think I'm going to listen to the member opposite, who I guess is filling in for the critic today, since he has been and gone.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the minister for acknowledging my birthday greetings to the municipality of Mackenzie. Also, I understand that our candidate for Prince George North was up visiting Mackenzie.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Okanagan North went to the opening of the Coquihalla because of his experience with first-aid.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: At first we were going to send the member for Skeena because we heard it was a gas leak.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk a little bit about the issue of countervailing duties — or the threat of countervailing duties — against Canadian softwood lumber going into the United States. We feel that the government at this point feels they're in a position of disadvantage. As the government always does, they come out attacking others, attacking the Americans, threatening all sorts of retaliation, calling the process "trade terrorism" and a few other well-chosen phrases by the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment, none of which, of course, assist in developing our position with the United States with respect to the countervailing duties. The minister asks: "Why are we involved in this situation right now? Why is politics involved in this situation?" He talks about reading the debates in the United States Senate and Congress.

I think one of the reasons we're involved in this issue is because of this government's blind jumping on the conservative free trade bandwagon — what Mr. MacDonald, former Minister of Finance for the country, called a leap of faith. This government made a leap of faith on the part of the citizens of B.C. without checking its impacts on the economy of British Columbia, without determining in advance what our position should be with respect to free trade in the United States, what advantages would accrue to B.C., what the costs would be and how those costs and benefits would be distributed. None of this was checked in advance, because this government is blindly committed to those free-trade negotiations with the United States, and they blindly jumped on the bandwagon that Mr. Mulroney has provided for them.

He says this is the largest trade between any two nations on earth under the current terms of trade. I suppose they want to greatly expand that by discussing the free-trade issue. But

[ Page 8275 ]

for the very reason that we seem so desperate for a free-trade agreement and for a fast-track process of negotiations with the United States, those United States senators and congressmen saw an advantage. They saw in Canada's desperation to get these fast-track negotiations a lever that they could use on the President to get this issue before the International Trade Commission. That's why we have the process in effect today where the petition has been filed before the ITC and, as the minister said, the clock is now ticking.

I want to talk a little bit about the proposal for free-trade negotiations. What are the impacts going to be on British Columbia? What is going to be on the table? As we meet regularly, Mr. Chairman, with sector groups in the British Columbia economy — with farmers, with people in the manufacturing sector, with people who provide goods and services and who sell those goods and services into export — they are concerned about these negotiations, because there has been very little in the way of concrete discussions between this provincial government and the people representing those sectors of our provincial economy. Nobody knows what's being discussed. Nobody knows whose jobs are on the line or whose capital investment is on the line in this province. I don't think that they trust the Premier. They've seen his performance in negotiations before — very costly to the people of British Columbia.

We met with people in the agricultural sector, Mr. Chairman, and I know that this doesn't relate strictly to the debate on the minister's estimates, but those people in the farm community in this province are extremely concerned about free trade in British Columbia. They don't know what's on the table. Are marketing-board arrangements and supply management arrangements on the table in those negotiations? Is the Premier willing to trade those off? The Premier says that we've got the most competitive farmers in the world, but up against.... I know what you're going to say, Mr. Chairman, but this relates directly to the softwood lumber issue, and by the fact that we're now in the process of dealing with a threat of countervailing duties because of the Premier's blind jumping on Mulroney's free-trade bandwagon, this issue is now in the hopper as well as other free-trade related issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If we could return to vote 34. Debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant. Ministry of Forests.

MR. SKELLY: We'll attempt to make it strictly relevant, but the problem here, Mr. Chairman, is the simple fact that this government in its blind pursuit of negotiations on free trade has ended up by throwing the softwood lumber trade into the hopper, and as a result that trade is threatened by the action that's been taken before the International Trade Commission in the United States. That's the problem here.

The minister tries to blame others in this Legislature, tries to blame the federal government, tries to blame the United States. It is a political issue in the United States, and it's very difficult for us to fault those lumber-state representatives and those lumber-state senators. When they see an opportunity to defend their constituents, who have lost their jobs over the last several years, then, because that's been the performance in the United States in the past, you can expect those lumber-state senators and congressmen to go after the entry of Canadian lumber into the United States. It's not right for them to do that. I think they're making a serious error in doing that, because the moment they impose countervailing duties against Canadian goods going into the United States, or the minute that they get restrictions, then the terms of trade between these two countries, Canada and the United States, end up suffering throughout all the sectors. It's hard to blame the U.S. congressmen and the U.S. senators for wanting to preserve jobs in their constituencies; we disagree with the way they've gone about it.

We want to see this government better represent the interests of people in British Columbia who own producing plants and who work in producing plants. That, Mr. Chairman, is where this government has fallen down. They've ignored the interests of softwood lumber producers in British Columbia. They've ignored the problems that workers in that industry have felt. In going for an overall discussion of free trade, and in going for the fast-track process, they've enabled President Reagan and Mulroney to sell out the interests of Canadian producers, to sell out the interests of British Columbia producers and to put us in this situation where our softwood lumber trade with the United States has been jeopardized.

This, on the part of this government....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Tell us how.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this minister: in pursuing blindly this free-trade issue and in attempting to attain the fast-track process, did he not expect that those U.S. senators and congressmen, who are so protectionist-oriented in this sector, would not seek their advantage to get the lumber issue dealt with separately in the United States? In his blind pursuit of these free-trade discussions, that's precisely what has happened. He has given those lumber-state senators and congressmen the advantage in dealing with the administration in the United States. That's exactly what has happened, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sold us out.

MR. SKELLY: He sold us out. He's done it on a straight theoretical basis, totally theoretical, because this is the extreme right wing's financial theory. There is this belief that if you eliminate all of these differences between countries, then there will be this theory of relative advantage that operates: those who produce lumber will do best at producing lumber and those who produce bananas will do best at producing bananas, and somehow, through some hidden hand, as Adam Smith called it, the market will clear and everybody will be happy.

It has never worked in the history of the world. Milton Friedman attempted it in Chile, because here was the perfect laboratory to do this right-wing economic claptrap. They had a dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who was very favourable to these right-wing economic theories, and he was willing to provide the lab in order to bring them to effect.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is some remote question as to the relevance of the discourse on Ricardo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!

HON. MR. SMITH: You sit down yourself....

[ Page 8276 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: ...you yappy little spaniel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh-oh. The Attorney-General will withdraw the last comment.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I withdraw the comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to relevance, the committee knows full well that during debates in Committee of Supply, debate must be strictly relevant to the administration of the ministry, which in this case is the minister's office, Ministry of Forests. I am sure all members are aware of standing orders and how they apply to debate in Committee of Supply.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I am responding to the introductory remarks of the minister, who was talking about trade issues, which he indicated were in the federal jurisdiction. I am attempting to make my remarks strictly relevant to the minister's introductory remarks.

Now what we are talking about here is the belief that free trade can exist in the real world. As I said. even Donald Macdonald, who advocated freer trade arrangements between Canada and the United States, indicated that it required a tremendous leap of faith. There has never been this kind of theoretical free-trade arrangement in the real world. There have been attempts at bringing it about by Milton Friedman and others, as I suggested, in Chile. But even under the most favourable of circumstances that kind of right-wing economic theory failed. Even under a dictatorship that was favourable to the process that economic theory has failed, and it has failed every time it has ever been applied.

[5:00]

Those kind of right-wing economic theories brought us into the first Great Depression of this century, back in the 1930s, and that is when the original protectionist sentiment developed in the United States. As the economy declined, what those U.S. congressmen and senators attempted to do was to improve the position of their constituents relative to the rest of the world. As a result, the trade arrangements and the terms of trade that had been developed over time, in a complex set of negotiations and relationships between nations, collapsed, because those congressmen and senators were seeking their own advantage and the advantage of their constituents over the nation as a whole or over the globe as a whole. That's a serious problem.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We want to do whatever we can, whatever is possible, to maintain the trade relations we have in softwood lumber with the United States: that is, free entry of our softwood lumber into the U.S. market. We should adopt an absolutely hard line....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The minister asks: what about currency fluctuations? Now I am not sure anybody in this House has jurisdiction over currency fluctuations, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister has invested in a few yen money-market accounts or something. We'll have to check his disclosure forms. But you are absolutely right: this is a serious problem. How can you envisage a free-trade arrangement between two countries based on an absolutely level playing-field where the currencies don't have some kind of equal relationship? On the other hand....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. The minister will have ample opportunity to inquire of the leader's estimates.

MR. SKELLY: At this point, could I suggest that he invest a few bucks in the ethical growth fund at the Vancouver City Savings Credit Union?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, currency relationships do have to come into this whole agreement. When we meet with the printers in British Columbia, they say that one of the advantages that they have now is that because of the low value of our dollar relative to the American dollar they are able to compete in the United States market and sell their services in the United States. A very small shift in currency arrangements will result in their being less competitive, and the United States, which has a tremendous unutilized capacity in the printing industry, with a very small difference in currency arrangements could end up taking over the printing business in Canada and putting our printers and our employees in the printing industry out of work. There is some concern about currency arrangements. Now those printers use a lot of Canadian paper, produced by the forest industry in British Columbia.

But other things have to be taken into account, and this is why I was mentioning the agriculture industry. The Premier likes to say that our farmers are the most efficient producers in the world, and the farmers agree with him. They say that's absolutely right, but we can't compete with the climate in the United States. We can be the most efficient producers in the world, but those second-rate producers in the United States have two growing seasons each year. We can't compete with that, so how is the minister going to bring in such issues as climate in order to level this playing-field? There are some things that we as a nation have to do in order to protect our producers, so that the playing-field is made equal when you take into account things such as climate, distance to markets, and other things that have been taken into consideration.

One of the things that the minister mentioned, in quoting the ITC decision — the last decision made in 1982 — was that, all things being equal, our lumber wasn't trading at a subsidized rate into the United States. I believe that this minister and this government, by blindly jumping on Mulroney's bandwagon, by making a leap of faith, by not studying the issue and the impacts on British Columbia beforehand, by operating on theory rather than on pragmatism and rather than operating in the real world, has jeopardized the terms of trade that we enjoy with the United States in terms of our softwood lumber. They've jeopardized jobs in the forest industry; they've jeopardized investment in the forest industry. Any problems that result have to rest squarely on the neck of this minister, his Premier, his government, his negotiators, for blindly following this process without regard to the interests of the people of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) defers to the hon. minister.

[ Page 8277 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like to respond to a couple of comments the Leader of the Opposition has raised. Placing the fault at the feet of government.... Because primarily the differential is found in the dollar, the U.S. dollar and the Canadian dollar. The opening shot was worth about $54.75 American. Convert that to Canadian dollars, and what do we have? What we have is a differential of $200 for a thousand board feet in U.S. currency and what it's worth to the Canadian producer. The opening salvo, the opening bargaining chip, that they have thrown out eats up that differential.

I'd like to give you a quote, coming from one of the senators who has been an advocate for the countervail. It is Senator Symms. and this is what he said: "We have brought this problem on ourselves in many ways. One was our failure to address the federal deficit" — that is the U.S. deficit — "creating an imbalance between the value of currency between the U.S. and Canada."

You talk about the politics of it all. All we need to do is trace the history of four or five major lumber-producing states: Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Montana, Georgia, North Carolina. If you look at each one of those, you will find that the elected representatives.... Of course they're going to come to the defence of their constituents. But on the one hand. they turn around and they want the product for their community — the community of the U.S. — and they want the best value they can get for the dollar that they put out, like all people between an open border with $168 billion of commerce between two countries.

Of course they're going to bring out a coalition, and we've got U.S. lumber interests. As the House has been told on more than one occasion, the reason is not really unheard of before: they've been doing it for 25 years. The material I've got starts in 1962, repeatedly, all the way up the line. By cracky. I think we're going to take another run at it. because we think we've got the ear of the administration. We think we do, and so we look, and what does Senator Packwood from Oregon say? His comment is: "Canada is the victim, not the cause." It's the victim because of a high deficit in the U.S., high interest rates in the U.S., and many people in the U.S. don't save the way they do in Japan. The people from Japan are investing very highly in bonds in the U.S. Why? Because the return is there. One of their own senators comes out and says so in no uncertain terms.

Another thing you've raised: that we precipitated the countervail. I will tell again and again, that countervail was already prepared. You're not telling me a book that thick....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

The appendices and backup material came to my office today in a brief that big. Are you telling me that when we go back to Toronto and we don't agree to negotiate away our system and our tax regime.... And we must agree to the main table. Everybody does. That's exactly what the U.S. trade representative said. Ambassador Murphy says everything goes on the main table. The president's letter dated April 24: main table.

The next thing we come across — I'm sure members of the opposition have read it — is a quote from the President of the U.S. What does he say about Senator Packwood? "I want you to know that the most significant political event that has ever happened in my lifetime is the tax revision bill which was shepherded through the Congress and the Senate by none other than the leading senator from Oregon." Why do we have this change? It's obviously what is happening in the U.S., and you can't blame certain segments in the U.S. for taking that position.

The next issue is that you accuse the government of going blindly into free trade. One of the reasons for going into free trade is to remove, if at all possible, the irritant which has occurred in British Columbia for years and years and years; that is, a method to get away from the U.S. trade laws and have dispute-resolving mechanisms in place so that we don't always have the gun at our head and our producers have some security of delivery. I haven't heard any comment from the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the variation of stumpage rates within the U.S. Itself. I've already mentioned to you that from the literature I've been able to get hold of, they vary from $8 to $100 within the U.S. What are they going to have? Tariffs between states? That's unheard of, and it wouldn't be supported.

That covers, I think, the points you made. I have no intention of going into Chile or agriculture, or any other place that the Leader of the Opposition feels comfortable advancing the cause of. But I will stick on this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might table in this committee a letter sent to Prime Minister Mulroney today regarding the lumber issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Regretfully, Mr. Premier, no documents can be tabled in committee.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, okay. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee could rise and....

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'll do it after.

MR. HOWARD: I think the Minister of Forests should realize he's not dealing with a number of compliant school boards now, which is what he's used to dealing with. He's dealing with a pretty serious question: namely, the preservation of the foundation of our economy here in British Columbia. His predecessor in office classified the lumber industry as a sunset industry. The Premier classified it as a sunset industry and wanted to go on to other things. The minister should get it out of his head that it's a sunset industry, if that's the position of government, because that's what it was declared to be before.

[5:15]

Secondly, when it comes to the preservation of the lumber industry and the preservation of the position of lumber products free trade into the United States, nobody stands stronger on that point than this party right here. Nobody. When the proposal for special envoys to deal with the lumber question on trade came out of Ottawa a weekend ago, without the courtesy of even questioning the minister what his interests were in it, it was COFI, through Mike Apsey and Allan Sinclair, who expressed thoughts that maybe it was a good idea. It was I who expressed thoughts that it was a nutty idea, that there was nothing to negotiate with lumber products. The proposal of the Mulroney government, friends of this government in Ottawa, in talking about special envoys, was really a sellout position, and we declared against that at that time,

[ Page 8278 ]

before the ministry even knew that it had happened. So don't give us any guff about relative positions with respect to protecting free trade.

The Premier earlier today — and I need to deal with this because he mentioned a letter that he had written before — during question period attempted to distort the position of this party, attempted to distort the position of the Leader of the Opposition, attempted to attack when there was no foundation for it, attempted to twist the truth and the reality, to paint a different picture than that which exists.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe nobody believes him. They've got good reason not to believe him or to believe anything this government says. You just can't trust them, Mr. Speaker. You just can't trust them. They're two-faced. It's a two-faced government, that's what it is. Let me show you how two-faced it is, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, possibly some temperance of the language would be appreciated. It would be more conducive to decorum in the House, and also more pleasant reading in Hansard for future generations.

MR. HOWARD: Well, future generations should read the truthful feelings, Mr. Chairman, not some diluted, editorialized version. And if the Premier would follow that advice and if this government would follow that advice and not try to twist and distort everything to suit their own political convenience, we'd he far better off in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the estimates of the Minister of Forests, hon. member, and we'd appreciate debate on that.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I realize where we are, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to put this in the context of the Premier, the leader of this government, running around and telling things which are not factually accurate. Here's what he said today; let me read it to you. Then he attempted to table a letter, I assume, here a minute ago. This is today: "Therefore I have written the Prime Minister today, asking that he contact the President of the United States." And make sure not only that he "clean launch" all items on the table — no preconditions — that he and the Prime Minister spoke of, but that we have a standstill on any protectionist trade initiatives on either side of the border while the talks are going on. That was today. The Premier finally got around to understanding that there's a problem with his friend Mulroney in Ottawa, he finally got to understand that there's a difficulty. Finally the Premier has come to the conclusion it would be worthwhile to write a letter to this guy Mulroney, and ask him to pay attention to the interests of those in British Columbia.

That was today he did that. Three weeks ago when the Senate finance committee of the United States was making a decision with respect to free trade and when Senator Packwood from Oregon said he got a commitment from President Reagan to the effect that he, President Reagan, would settle unilaterally the lumber problem, as he classified it, I fired off a telegram to Prime Minister Mulroney saying substantially the same thing that the Premier finally got around to putting in a letter today, three weeks later. That's how far behind the times this government is. It didn't recognize the problems being visited upon British Columbia by the activities of the Senate finance committee chaired by Senator Packwood three weeks ago. They didn't realize what those problems were. They had their heads stuck in the sand out here.

Let me put this on the record. I won't read the whole telegram that I sent to Prime Minister Mulroney, but in the recitation of the events in the United States as between Senator Packwood and the Senate finance committee and the White House over free trade and over lumber, the final part of that telegram, which I'll table, reads:

THIS SHOULD CERTAINLY PROMPT YOU — that's Prime Minister Mulroney — TO INVITE REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS TO BE FULL PARTICIPANTS IN ANY TRADE NEGOTIATIONS TO ENSURE — listen to this, Mr. Premier, if you are around — THAT THE FREE TRADE WHICH NOW EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO LUMBER BE CONTINUED.

That's the position we've consistently taken. Any distortion of that is a despicable, near-treasonable act, as far as this province is concerned, made by desperate people desperately seeking for some way out of the dilemma they find themselves in politically — desperate people willing to distort any facts of life to serve their own ends.

We sent another telegram on May 5, the commencement of National Forest Week — which I thought was a worthwhile commemorative thing to do, because we're dealing with the lumber industry in this province. In that telegram I urged the Prime Minister to take the steps necessary to ensure that lumber remain a non-negotiable item, on the main table or wherever it is, in the free-trade talks that are going on — not negotiable in any sense of the word.

When I find chief spokesmen for COFI, like Mr. Apsey and Allan Sinclair, presumably with the approval of this minister, expressing tentative support for the envoy system that was proposed, I find that there's something seriously wrong. When I find an officer of Canfor saying publicly, "Well, we could stand a little bit of a tariff in the United States against lumber," and no words of admonition from this government about that, I find that a very dangerous position to take. I find that the allies of the United States protectionists are right here in this chamber, in this government, and among some people in the lumber industry in this province.

What's going on in the United States? A few years ago, when the action was taken to move for countervailing duty in the United States, we in this party committed ourselves to maintaining a stance, along with the government, the industry and representatives of the IWA, that that was an administrative action being taken in the United States. We did not want to leave the impression in the United States that it was a question of political interference here, because they were arguing the same thing they're arguing now — namely, that a political decision had been made to subsidize the industry in B.C. through low stumpage rates.

We felt, and so did this government at that time, that for the political people at the provincial level in British Columbia to start making public noises opposed to that move to have countervailing duties would give substance to those who were proposing them. We were solid at that time. When, well over a year ago now, the subsequent actions came along at the political level, with Congressman Craig from Idaho, I believe, in the forefront of some of those actions, it was we, Mr. Minister, who proposed that we have a unified, solid approach in British Columbia to protect lumber for free-trade purposes. We proposed that we establish, along with the

[ Page 8279 ]

government, the industry and the unions involved. a team approach, so that we were all going in the same direction and all saying the same thing.

That proposal, an attempt to provide unity and leadership in this province, came from the NDP, and it was vetoed by this guy that passes himself off as the Premier of this province. He didn't want anything to do with it — didn't want anything to do with unity, to protect the lumber industry. Why? Because he saw an opportunity perhaps to exploit something for political advantage — not for the good of British Columbia, not for the good of the lumber industry, not for the good of the workers in the lumber industry, but for the purely partisan, crass political advantage of the party to which he belongs.

We've had a situation in the last year and a half in which the countervailing duty group in the United States and their political allies from the particular states that the minister mentioned, and elsewhere, have tied themselves together. When the announcement was made that they were going to proceed with the countervailing duty action, who was there as spokesman for the industry? And on either side of him were two members of Congress, two senators. So politics and the lumber industry — at least a portion of it in the United States — were together on that one.

What we're suggesting as far as British Columbia's attitude is concerned is that this is too important to be left to the industry. This is political action we are talking about. to ensure one simple thing; and that is what is going to be of benefit to British Columbia — not what is going to be of benefit to Social Credit, what is going to be of benefit to British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister of Forests — responsible, careful and thoughtful person that he is — would take the position with respect to the irresponsible statements by the Premier and the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — rabble-rousing by the mad doctor again.... I wish the Minister of Forests would exhibit a sane and sensible voice in this dialogue, and stand up and say that that action, and those statements of the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment, do not represent Forests ministry policy, do not represent government policy.

I wish this minister would have the courage to stand up to his Premier and say: "Mr. Premier, stop distorting the facts. We're all in this together, and we need to work together" — to quote the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) a while back, even when he refused to do it himself. He thinks it is a good idea when it suits his convenience. So that's what we are after with respect to.... I don't want to hear anything further about distorting the position of the New Democratic Party when it comes to free trade and lumber particularly, because that is what we are talking about this time. We're talking about the damage that can accrue to the whole of the province of British Columbia because of a weak and insecure Premier, and a weak and insecure government who don't really have a long-range objective, who will jump on anybody's bandwagon at any time if it suits their own political advantage, and who don't really worry about the effect that that has upon the people of British Columbia.

[5:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member, unless you are acting as designated speaker.

MR. HOWARD: The time is sufficient. I have said that portion of what it is. I wish the minister would stand up and say he is with me on this one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena leaves me somewhat nonplussed, because on one hand he makes reference to a telegram that was sent in support of free trade as far as lumber is concerned, but on the other hand we have the Leader of the Opposition telling us something a little bit different. What the Leader of the Opposition said was: "Did you really think out the ramifications of free trade?"

You can't have it both ways. Here we've got the forestry critic saying one thing, which is important, but we have the leader of the New Democratic Party, who within the last hour said something, I have to say, totally different. Now that was quite....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition said: "Did you think, members of government, about the ramifications of free trade?" We believe in free trade. It's in the interests of our lumber industry to believe in free trade. It's in the interests of the lumber industry not only in British Columbia but in Canada to have the trade irritants removed so they don't continue their operations year after year after year, wondering what the U.S. trade law will do to them tomorrow. The importance of this issue is to remove the trade-law irritants and find a dispute mechanism for resolving these issues.

The member for Skeena made some reference to roads. I'm not sure about his comment, with the expenditures in here.... But I picked up a document prepared by a U.S. author, entitled President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control. The first page of the excerpt I have gives an overview of the Forest Service in the U.S. and their concerns about costs. The opening paragraph reads as follows: "The Forest Service has 190 million acres, with over 42,000 employees, but it posts losses of $1 billion per year." Another item comes up when you look at the direct costs that the U.S. Is experiencing with respect to roads. These roads are paid for by the U.S. Forest Service. Last year the investment in those roads exceeded $400 million.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now why do we want that trade irritant removed? In British Columbia, which produces probably 50 percent of the softwood in Canada, 85 percent of the production of the interior, both northern and southern, is funnelled into the U.S. market. The amount of money that we allocate for road construction this year.... Last year it was about $12 million to $14 million; this year I think it's up around $16 million to $17 million because it includes the small business enterprise program.

The point I'm making is that we're encouraging...that the people of British Columbia are helping pay to fight the countervail, because these items come out time and time again and a significant amount of money is involved. With the effort which the government has put in fighting the countervail and succeeding again and again and again, most recently in May of 1983 at an expenditure of millions of dollars to defend our position, a number of these issues come

[ Page 8280 ]

out before us. That is why it's so important that we invest that money, that we assist those who are leading the organization to counteract the arguments advanced by the U.S. lumber interests.

One thing the opposition and government certainly agree upon is that we must preserve — using the words of the member for Skeena and our own language — the economic foundation of British Columbia. It wasn't too long ago that I made the following statement, and I quote: "Whatever new opportunities the future may bring, whatever technology is used or value-added industries created, the forests will remain the basic wealth of our province." So I don't think there is really any argument. Where the argument may come up — and it became very clear, particularly when we arrived in Toronto last week — is when the issue of the envoy or representative stem is advanced. The reason we as government were opposed to that.... Perhaps the member for Skeena was not here, but I outlined my own notes for the reasons why the government could not support that position, and it was important that we at least hear what the federal government had to offer. As I mentioned, the clock was ticking. The countervailing petition had not been filed. The reason it had not been filed is that they have been lobbying that particular interest in Washington. D.C., over the last two weeks. The only reason that they would withdraw filing of the petition was to find out what the position of Canada would be with respect to the envoy system.

Canada and British Columbia, of course, which we represent, had nothing to negotiate. We don't negotiate with U.S. business interests. U.S. business interests don't tell the province of British Columbia or its government what taxes should be levied at all.

So I made it very clear what our position was, and I can tell you that that position was advanced in the clearest of terms.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know why the minister persists, unless it's some attempt to leave an impression that is not in accordance with the facts. I don't know why the minister insists on indicating that there are two different views existing on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. There are no two different views. There's one view. It's been related a number of times to the minister. Now maybe the minister enjoys being a parrot for the Premier in trying to make that case, but it just ain't so.

If there are two positions anywhere in this chamber on that subject matter, they're within the government. We have the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer) having gone to one meeting and coming away an immediate expert, and then saying we're going to have trade wars, we're going to retaliate, we're going to take on the United States. We'll show them, we'll fix them, says the mad doctor.

I apologize for that. I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Let's avoid personal references and also stick to vote 33, the Ministry of Forests.

MR. HOWARD: I do. I withdraw it immediately. It's just that I've heard other cabinet ministers so often use that phrase with respect to the hon. gentleman that it just slipped out inadvertently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote, please.

MR. HOWARD: I should not have used it.

But we do find the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment saying: "Let's fight the Yankees. Let's take them on. Lets engage in a trade war." That's his position after coming out of a meeting — one meeting. Apparently that position of that minister is not the position of the Minister of Forests. At least I hope it isn't. I think the Minister of Forests is a much more genteel and sensible, down-to-earth person than to say irresponsible things like the Minister of International Trade and Investment said. So if there is a division of view about this, it's over there within the cabinet. I asked earlier. I said I wished the Minister of Forests would declare himself and say that he abhors that kind of proposal put forward by his cabinet colleague. I can understand the Minister's embarrassment at having one of his colleagues say irresponsible things like that, but nonetheless that should not prevent the Minister of Forests from declaring against it and showing the people of this province that there is one voice in this province with respect to the protection of lumber and the insurance that it maintains its free-trade status.

The minister talked about having gone to Ottawa. This was a few days after Ottawa had announced that it was either thinking seriously of or proposing the special-envoy approach. The approach, as I recall the time sequence of it, was made a weekend ago on perhaps a Friday or Saturday — I'm not sure of the exact date — with the federal government saying: "We're going to propose a special envoy approach to deal with lumber, to negotiate with lumber." As I recall the answer the minister gave to the House on the subsequent Monday, they didn't ask the minister for the views of this government about that: they just went ahead and did it. I consider that to have been a doublecross of the position of British Columbia, an attempt to make one move to deal with lumber separately in order to get some concessions or some ground movement on the other questions of free trade. That speaks to me as if the Mulroney government in Ottawa — the long-time bosom friends of this government and this minister, that they were prepared to negotiate away British Columbia's interests. Otherwise why would it be at the initiative of the Canadian government to say that publicly without checking with the minister here about it?

Ill say again that my immediate response to that was that it was nuts. We have nothing to negotiate. Lumber is free trade, and we have to keep it that way, and we can't be having it off and setting it aside separately, regardless of what Prime Minister Mulroney wants. We've got to protect our interests here. I notice the minister a few days later said substantially the same thing. It is almost as if he was busy elsewhere doing some other things. Nonetheless, those facts need to be on the record.

I consider it to have been a doublecross of our position. Even if doublecross is considered to be too stringent a phrase to apply to that proposal, I consider it to have been an action on the part of the Canadian government that was not in concert with the desires of those of us in this Legislature, all of us excluding maybe the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment, who is saying something else. I consider that not to have taken into account our position. I consider that to have been an insult to the Minister of Forests himself, because they didn't have the courtesy, as I understand what the minister said, even to pick up the telephone and say: "Look, we're going to suggest this. What do you

[ Page 8281 ]

think about it?" They just did it, and then sent a telegram and said, "We've done it," after the fact.

I am not anxious to have people like that negotiating on my behalf, which is partly why about three weeks ago I took the position with Prime Minister Mulroney in that telegram that British Columbia should in fact be a participant in — this is long before the envoy thing came into existence — trade negotiations, to ensure that our interests arc protected and we're at the table, we're involved in the process to ensure that, as I said in the telegram, free trade which now exists with respect to lumber be continued.

[5:45]

I have to reiterate that, and regret very much that the minister seems to see some divergent view with respect to that. There is no divergent view. Maybe the minister wishes there were. Maybe he wishes, as I said earlier, to be a parrot to the Premier and say what the Premier has been saying both in this chamber and out in the corridor to the media in an attempt to get across an impression to the people of this province that is not a factually correct impression.

Perhaps the minister can tell us what action the government is contemplating taking with respect to making our case before the tribunal in the United States — whose name escapes me right at the moment — before which the countervailing duty application is to be heard. It seems to me that because the people in the United States have tied together the economics and the politics of it, and because the group that classifies itself for fair lumber imports and is launching the countervailing duty action sits down in front of television cameras with two prominent senators of the United States — they say they're all together on this — we should be speaking with one voice and making the case from the government's point of view to that tribunal in the United States, and not simply leaving it up to the agents who happen to represent COFI.

Remember that shortly after the Canadian government announced that it was moving in the direction of special envoys, representatives of COFI said: "That's a good idea. We think that will be helpful." That makes me wonder about the political sensitivity of the people in COFI. They're out there to serve the interests of the lumber industry and of their participating members. One of those participating members is Canfor. Canadian Forest Products is on the record — Mr. Bentley, I believe it was — as saying: "Well, we can afford a little bit of a tariff on lumber into the United States. That won't be too serious." When those kinds of statements are made by people who are participants in the Council of Forest Industries, we should have some question as to just how the Council of Forest Industries is going to represent the interests of all of British Columbia. It's the government of the province of B.C. that is constitutionally responsible for representing the interests of all of British Columbia; COFI is just responsible for representing the interests of its constituent members, and the two don't necessarily coincide. I'm very much afraid that if the Bentleys of this world, who say, "Well, we could stand a little bit of a tariff or countervailing duty on lumber into the United States — we could manage that...." If that view prevails, then COFI is not the best group to be arguing our case before that U.S. tribunal. We've got to do that, I maintain.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'd like to know what the minister contemplates doing in that regard. And I hope that if it's a positive approach that he's taking, he excludes the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer), because we want to do something positive and helpful here, not destructive and injurious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the committee's information, it's 4-2 for Montreal at the end of the first.

The hon. minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. However, I'm afraid that the minds of all of us right now are on the issue of softwood.

A very quick response: the lead organization is the Canadian Forest Industries Council. It's known as CFIC; there's an acronym for everything. The leadership of that association is Mike Apsey, who is the former Deputy Minister of Forests, and now is the president of the Council of Forest Industries. This organization is funded by industry, by the provinces and, I believe, by the federal government. The history of this organization, I think, is extraordinary. Remember, the Council of Forest Industries was the organization which had the carriage for the countervail petition in 1982, the decision of which was rendered in May 1983 and was in favour of Canada.

As far as the representation in Washington is concerned, the law firm of Arnold and Porter — which is well known in the U.S., you can rest assured of that — is acting as counsel on behalf of all Canadian interests. Our response to the petition will be prepared and filed by that law firm. The Coalition for Fair Trade, I believe, the name which is advanced by the U.S. lumber industry, is represented by the law firm of Dewey Ballantine, which, I might add, has some very distinguished people....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Dewey Ballantine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No. It's the name of the firm. There are two surnames involved, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman probably knows. It is a well-known law firm in the U.S. We should understand, Mr. Chairman, that Arnold and Porter is very familiar with the Canadian softwood industry and has spent a considerable amount of time in our country. They have also been present at the four or five hearings which were in the process of being conducted prior to the petition being prepared and filed.

I would like to respond as well to the statement made by the member for Skeena involving certain words which have been attributed to one well-known forest company, made by its chief executive officer. I'm not all that enamoured with those particular comments. I believe that you cannot stop people from making statements or attempting to negotiate through the media. There's one place where this can be done. Fortunately, we have not heard any other comments of that kind.

I'm of the view that there is some very significant representation on behalf of our interest. It's interesting to note that when you look at the material which has been prepared and filed by the Canadian embassy in Washington — and I'm sure

[ Page 8282 ]

that all members in the House have received copies of it — the last document that was put out is really a significant display of what occurred in the past and what is before us now. I'm also advised that there is some advertising by a number of groups who are supportive of the Canadian position; that is, people in certain organizations in the U.S. are doing that as well.

I have not had an opportunity to read the petition. It's a very thick document and it just arrived prior to the House convening at 2:00 o'clock today. But from all indications that I have there is some good representation, and I would like to repeat: remember, it was the same group of people who took the Canadian case forward in 1982-83. I think we're fortunate in this respect, because the chief executive officer of the Council of Forest Industries was selected — the manner of selection I am not sure of — by all other provinces and industry across the land to be probably the most knowledgeable and eloquent spokesman on behalf of the Canadian softwood industry.

In view of the time, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, by agreement and understanding order 2, the House will sit tomorrow from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The House will not sit Thursday, but will sit Friday at the normal hours.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave to table the documents to which I referred in Committee of the Whole.

Leave granted.

Mr. Howard tabled documents.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I too would ask leave to table a document referred to in committee.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled documents.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.