[ Page 273 ]

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Resources/Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979. Hon. Mr. Bennett

Introduction and first reading — 273

Income Tax Amendment Acts, 1979. Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading — 273

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading — 273

Supply Act No. 1, 1979. Second reading.

Mr. Stupich — 273

Mr. Cocke — 276

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 278

Mr. Ring — 282

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 285

Mr. Levi — 286

Mr. Smith — 287

Mr. Kerster — 289

Hon. Mr. Shelford — 291

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 292

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RESOURCES INVESTMENT
CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1979

HON. MR. GARDOM: I yield to the hon. member for Nanaimo, who was speaking at the hour of interruption.

MR. STUPICH: I express my appreciation to the Attorney-General for yielding as he did. Had it been left in his hands I guess we wouldn’t be here this evening debating this supply bill.

The Premier, in discussing the hour of adjournment, and in discussion of the supply bill that led to this, expressed some concern about a number of things. One was the fact that the official opposition wanted to discuss the supply bill. The point was not so much that we wanted time to discuss it on the floor of the House, but simply that we wanted time to review the implications of the supply bill overnight. We did give the assurance that we would pass it quickly tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, at the time of adjournment, at 6:30 or so — may I have the attention of the Attorney-General as well? – there was a lot of exuberance in the House. I think we had likely a little too much noise from both sides. Perhaps, rather than become used to that level of noise, we could grab the bull by the horns and bring the House back to order. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I know you’re listening, at least. As I was saying, the Premier expressed some concern about the fact that we were holding up the pay for workers all over the province. He mentioned different localities – I believe Terrace and Smithers were mentioned – where we were holding up pay, and it would fall on the heads of the opposition in the event that these people were not able to receive their pay on time.

Certainly we’d be the last to do anything like that. If we felt that the Premier was genuine in his arguments and that by wanting to discuss the supply bill, or at least being able to consider it overnight, we would be holding up anyone’s pay, then we’d have to consider our position very seriously.

I’m not saying that it should be considered quite that lightly. This phrase was used by one of my colleagues: “Not a billion without debate.” We are being asked, with no warning, no advance notice, no opportunity to see the budget ahead of time…. When we talk about the way things were usually done — and that was raised before the hour of supper adjournment — one of the things that used to be the fashion was for the Leader of the Opposition or the finance critic, as the case may be, to have the budget in the morning at the same time as the press got it so that they would have some time to review it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says we still do. Perhaps if he knew what I know, then we would not be sitting here again this evening. He might have agreed, in spite of the protestations from some of his colleagues. It was presented to us ahead of time — yes, one hour

[ Page 274 ]

ahead of the time when we appeared in the House to listen to the Finance minister read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hour and a half.

MR. STUPICH: One hour and a half, I’m sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, half an hour.

MR. STUPICH: It was delivered in the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) at 12:30 p.m. That’s 1 1/2 hours prior to the time the Minister of Finance stood up to read it. Unfortunately, not knowing that the mail was being delivered at that time, part of that time was lost by my having had lunch. There was no warning that we were going to get the budget at 12:30; there was no word that we were going to get the budget at all prior to hearing it at 2 o’clock. There was no warning, no word, nothing, until the budget appeared in the office of the Leader of the Opposition at 12:30.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I’m being interrupted and I have to respond to some of these.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let’s hear the debate. If there are any corrections, they’ll be made at the end of the speech.

MR. STUPICH: There was a discussion, if I may phrase it that way, in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, and during the course of that discussion the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of receiving the budget ahead of time. By the time that discussion took place, the press had already had it for some two hours. The Leader of the Opposition raised this and said if that was going to be the lack of cooperation exhibited by the government, then we were withdrawing from certain agreements that the Whip had made, and that’s been referred to earlier.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The standard practice, Mr. Speaker, has been to give the budget to the….

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. WOLFE: With all due respect, the standard fact for many years was followed in this instance, and I take exception to the member saying it was any different. In the period of their regime the same thing applied. It was an early press release. The Leader of the Opposition received copies of the speech an hour before budget time a year ago; he received them an hour and a half before budget time in this instance. I don’t think we should try to delude the people of this province by saying the procedure was any different than this year.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to remind the minister that his argument should better come at the end when he wishes to correct a statement made by the member and attributed to him.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Can’t you divide by 4?

MR. STUPICH: I can divide by 4 without the use of a calculator, or without my fingers or toes. I’m not certain the Minister of Finance can do that.

The Premier suggested we might be holding up the pay for people by asking that consideration of the supply bill be held over until tomorrow. Today is only April 2. In the event that nothing untoward happens — any more messages from the Lieutenant-Governor — tomorrow will be only April 3. To the best of my knowledge no one expects to be receiving any paycheques prior to April 15, which gives us almost two weeks if we needed that much time.

You will recall that last year the government of the day — the same government — apparently felt there was no urgency to do anything like this. The session that year was delayed to the extent that the supply bill was not introduced until the comparable date, a week tomorrow — April 10. Today is only April 2. For the Premier to suggest that we are holding up salaries for government employees when we’re dealing with the supply bill eight days prior to the date on which it was introduced last year seems to me to be something less than candid with the people of British Columbia and with the members of this House.

One wonders whether the Premier has some

[ Page 275 ]

other problem in mind, some other reason why he wants the supply bill dealt with so quickly on April 2, rather than letting us have overnight to consider it, as we offered in a spirit of cooperation. One wonders whether it’s tied in with the timetable of a meeting on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of this weekend, when they want an early adjournment of the House so that the people’s business will be held off while they consider one of their many conventions. One wonders whether their timing has to fit into that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It’s not a filibuster we’re asking for, and it’s certainly not one planned by the government. When we were considering the hour of adjournment, I did send a note in to the library because there was some material I wanted them to look up, some material I thought I might need. The response was: “The library staff have all gone home.” When we wanted to have dinner this evening, the response was: “The grills have been turned off, and the kitchen staff have disappeared.” It was not a planned thing on the part of the government. I think the government was petty from the beginning, in not giving us the budget at the same time as they gave it to the press. Surely they wouldn’t suspect us not to be as honourable as the members of the press. We would like to have had the time to consider it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says it’s been that way for ten years. If he were right, that doesn’t make it proper. If something has been done wrong for ten years, there’s no excuse for continuing to do it that way simply because it was done that way yesterday and the day before and the day before that.

It has not been the practice over the last ten years to call the House together on March 22 to introduce a budget on April 2, and then to ask for a supply bill the same day. That’s the first time that’s ever happened. It has happened that supply bills have been asked for before. That’s not new in the history of the province. But it certainly is new that the government would have adjourned its 1978 session in June, called the House together only briefly for one day, then sent it home again and told it to wait until March 22, introduced a budget on April 2, and then asked the House to deal with a supply bill without any opportunity at all, despite the words from the Minister of Finance about the changes that have taken place, and in spite of, as I mentioned earlier, some new ministries that have been set up, such as the Ministry of Deregulation or whatever that is…. We would like to have had an opportunity to have the Minister of Deregulation tell us something about what he is doing before we start dividing his budget by 4.

The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing: there are certainly some questions that we think the minister in charge of that ministry should try to answer before we start dividing his expenditures by 4. The Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development: again, it’s a new ministry. There are new ministries, and had we been called together there would have been some opportunity to get some idea what the government was doing, what it had in mind, what was going on.

Even with all that, had we received a positive answer to our simple request for an opportunity to consider this legislation overnight — eight days ahead of the date on which it was introduced a year ago — had we received that kind of cooperation from across the House there would have been no problem with it. But the government seems determined not to be cooperative in this instance. I would hope that’s not an indication to us that they are going to adopt that attitude from here on in. I don’t think this is really doing the business of the people of the province. I don’t think it is doing any of us any good to get into these confrontations. Certainly I think the Attorney-General doesn’t want it any more than I do. I think we can work here in a spirit of cooperation and achieve much more than we can by arguing with each other over things like this. I think it’s unfortunate for everyone concerned that we got into this kind of debate, this acrimonious situation, on budget day.

Nevertheless, it was not of our seeking, this situation that was forced on us by the government adopting this very uncooperative attitude. I’m hoping that, having gone through this experience, from here on in they’ll be a little more cooperative and will work with us better than they have done in this particular instance. Together we can work our way through the budget, through the estimates and through the legislation that the government is presenting and get something useful done here for the people of the province.

We said earlier and we say again this evening that we have no intention of long delaying the supply bill, but we did think that the government should have acted a little differently in this respect.

[ Page 276 ]

MR. COCKE: I enjoyed the members — probably not too long to be members of this House — with their little chirping. They’re quite worried about our leader right now because he’s the only person in this province doing anything positive about employment. Thank heaven for that leader.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we should take just a few moments to reflect on our reason for being here and the standing orders which govern the time during which we are here. I should remind you that the standing orders provide that we recognize one person at a time who is not to be interrupted unless there is a point of order. Unless we can adopt these standing orders in a serious vein, we’ll have to take the measures that are provided by the standing orders as a remedy.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Just to reminisce a little while, I was wondering tonight over the dinner hour about a somewhat volatile leader who was the Premier of this province for some 20 years. I had the pleasure of serving in this House — sometimes not so pleasurable — and at the same time watching a very volatile, first-class gentleman at the helm. But I would never have expected to see, and certainly never have seen, anything the like of which we saw this afternoon.

Now Junior over there — the junior member — has never really understood the process that goes on here, so I’ll excuse that remark. But traditionally — particularly when we were government — the other side was told when there was unexpected legislation coming forward.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) please come to order?

MR. COCKE: I’ll react to the minister’s suggestion. Really, what I think we saw tonight was a spoiled little millionaire not getting his own way on everything and not acting like his daddy, who earned his way. That’s the only thing I can suggest.

I felt rather sorry for the poor old Whip (Mr. Mussallem). He had to carry some rather strange messages today. Unfortunately, if there had been any cooperation, if there was any thought or hope of cooperation, there would be no need for the kind of messages that he had to carry. The poor old Whip — just in argument to what he had to say in terms of a former agreement — was suggesting here that he was kicked out. As a matter of fact, I distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) say: “Stay here, I want to talk to you.”

And he said: “Oh, no. Talk to your Whip.”

Mr. Speaker, we’ve had a rather strange situation here. We’ve had the opposition waiting for some inkling of what is happening in the budget, so that we can think about a reply to what is in the budget — and that includes this quarter of the budget. The press had it at nine o’clock this morning, but we are not permitted the budget. They were guarded up there, somehow or other, but in any event we were not permitted access to this piece.

Mr. Speaker, just so the record is clear, the minister indicated that we can’t be trusted, and I take that as a slur from someone not worthy of making that kind of comment at all. Someday I’m going to ask that minister about some of his land dealings. Mr. Speaker, I believe that an interim supply bill should have been part of the discussion that we had originally on this whole question. There’s no reason why the opposition should not be told that an interim supply bill is coming forward.

There’s no member in this House that can ever remember a time that the opposition were not warned about that particular bill coming forward. Just try to remind me about it. If you can remember a time, I would like you to just stand in your place and remind us about it. It hasn’t happened. It wouldn’t happen.

Mr. Speaker, it’s just an act of vindictiveness. There’s no good reason not to permit the opposition at least an hour or two to kind of have a look at the budget first, so that they can decide whether or not the interim supply bill really reflects the needs of this province. No opposition is going to, in the long run, filibuster the interim supply bill. We know as well as anybody else that it is necessary, when a government waits until the dying hours of the fiscal year to start the Legislature in process.

But that’s just bad planning. That shows a group that can’t even run the Legislature, let alone run the province. They’ve proven they’re grossly incompetent in both areas. This gang was supposed to get the province moving again. This group slowed it to a grinding halt, and now they’re trying to do the same thing with the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, it’s a shame.

[ Page 277 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering….

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) will please come to order. This is the last asking.

Standing Order 20 provides that any member whose conduct is grossly disorderly shall be called upon to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder of that day’s sitting, and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of this resolution.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: I’d like to allude to another old tradition in our House.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I like my hands in my pockets, Mr. Attorney-General. As long as my mother doesn’t ask me that, then I will leave them where they are if it’s comfortable.

Mr. Bennett Senior, and his predecessors and his successor, had the budget speech and introduced the budget on a Friday. Now why did he do that? He did that for the convenience of the opposition, so that the opposition would have two days to study the budget, two days to consider the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave Barrett?

MR. COCKE: Yes, and Dave Barrett too.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn’t.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he did.

HON. MR. WOLFS: No, he didn’t. Check your records.

MR. COCKE: Check your own records.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bennett Senior had that on the weekend for a very good reason — to give the opposition an opportunity to study it — and on Monday the opposition had an opportunity to reply to the budget. Now we’ve got a budget significantly larger….

AN HON. MEMBER: It’s a good one, isn’t it?

MR. COCKE: I’m not indicating whether it’s good, bad or indifferent. The way you people manage things, it wouldn’t matter if you’d doubled it. You’d still blunder through and leave the people where they are today — in a state of chaos.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, you know, that’s the kind of politics…. While they’re a bit bush league in B.C., certainly we’ve never been as bush league as we’ve become with this new government. I think that the way they’ve manoeuvred around, what we’re seeing is what the people recognize — a government that cannot be trusted because they’re devious, sneaky and always trying to pull a little bit of a rug out from under someone. I subscribe…. Oh, the Attorney-General….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Environment rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I accept your admonition to this side to remain in order, but surely this speaker is far from the subject, and is as out of order as we have ever been in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is well received. Is the Attorney-General on the same point?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask the Hon. member to withdraw the word “devious.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for New Westminster please withdraw the word “devious” ?

MR. COCKE: I obviously offended the Attorney-General. I therefore withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there’s one other thing that’s obviously in the wings. We’re trying to figure out why it is that the government is trying to push through an Act that last year they did not bring forward in this House until April 10 — in other words, ten days after the end of the fiscal year.

Today, as I read my calendar, it’s April 2. Nicely done. That’s eight days prior — for the help of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — to when it was

[ Page 278 ]

brought forth last year. Last year they deemed the 10th in time; this year they deem the 2nd imperative. What’s going on?

Well, the only kind of scenario that I can think of, the only conclusion that I can come to, is that somehow or other the Premier has a timetable, and we’re somehow interrupting that timetable by our callousness. I think the hidden agenda is as follows: he wants to go up to Kamloops in a day or two and he’s got to get over to Vancouver tomorrow to a Socred mini- (not maxi but mini-) convention — mini-W.A.C. at a mini-convention.

Obviously the Premier cannot trust his lieutenants to get the work done tomorrow — that’s in his eyes, not ours — and so he is shoving down the throats of the opposition a bill which will expend $1.227 billion.

MRS KERSTER: You used to spend that much in a week.

MR. COCKE: The member from Hawaii said I used to spend that much in a week. Mr. Speaker, it’s not true. It took me a few days longer. Thank heaven they’ve kept him back where he hasn’t got his hands on any till.

I just feel that a bill as important and significant as this, expending a very large sum of money, a bill that is tied totally and completely to the budget, which expends four times that amount of money….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister is somewhat apprehensive about everything that is going on now, Mr. Speaker. Can I explain it to you, so that you can be a little softer with him in terms of his behaviour? I’ll explain it this way: I’d be nervous too if I were the Socred member for Columbia River with the new boundaries and with a first-class woman candidate up there to go against him.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the motion, please.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I try very hard to keep myself under the firm hand of discipline.

As I indicated, the Premier has this great scenario. The scenario is that in order to keep everything sort of on time, so that he can make his way up to Kamloops to his mini-convention, he has to get this bill through today. To heck with the opposition. To heck with giving them any kind of opportunity to go over the numbers. They don’t deserve that. On behalf of over half the people in the province, I might suggest…. There are still a few out there who trust him, but not too many.

But he wants to get up there. He wants to psyche up the last remaining little gang that he hasn’t spoken to yet — the faithful. I wonder, however, how many will get there. I think quite a few of the people who had hoped to be there won’t be there because they’re going to be busy fighting a Conservative or a Liberal campaign somewhere. So maybe he won’t be so thrilled with having pushed this through the House and having pushed us around with his huge majority — that grinding, thumping majority that are pushing $1.227 billion through this House like a bulldozer. I can’t believe it. The civil service got paid last year.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: That minister is just doing me a great service. He keeps making my speech for me.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: At least I admit it, Mr. Premier. When will you? Of course, we know John Arnett too.

Anyway, the public servants and everybody else got paid last year. What’s the point? And when did the warrants go out? Warrants are not to be issued when the Legislature is in session. He’s been a minister before. I can’t believe it. I can’t believe the gross incompetence.

The public servants got paid. Everybody else got paid in due course last year. No one was inconvenienced, and they didn’t even put through this bill — different numbers but the same bill — until the 10th. They’re playing games. As usual, they’re trifling with the people’s business in this province.

I can say nothing more. I’m a bit ashamed when I see this kind of behaviour in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster says he feels ashamed, and well he should. We in this Legislature have had healthy debate over the years. We’ve had opposing points of view, but one of the things that has been fundamental to this Legislature, as it is to the British parliamentary system, is a respect for the traditions, the niceties, and the rules and the way in which this House can operate. One of the traditions of this House, as it relates to the British parliamen-

[ Page 279 ]

tary system in other areas, is the matter of dealing with interim supply. Now let us not confuse this with the budget as it is presented, the budget debate, or the estimates and the detailed spending. There is ample opportunity for the members of this House to discuss the programs and the spending plans of this government. Let’s not confuse that. That opportunity will be there and it will be there as it wasn’t there when I was in this House in opposition, when that party, as government, had restrictions on the opportunity for the opposition to question the ministers in a detailed way over the spending plans of the government during estimates.

I can remember when they brought in their form of closure in this House. I can remember when they brought in the rules, when they couldn’t stand the light of day and were afraid to face the heat, and tried to close off the opposition. Mr. Speaker, I was there and I was part of a tragic event in this House that saw them bring in closure. Only by taking that message to the people of this province did we force that steamroller, big-government, arbitrary, autocratic group to bend to the wishes of the people and allow the people’s forum a chance to have the light of day shine in on estimates.

It’s that sad experience — the question of the coverup of the financial deficits and the desperation with which they called an election in mid-winter in 1975 — that made this government more determined than ever to bring in a measure of accountability, rules and regulations, quarterly financial reports and an auditor-general to question the accounts, not only of government but of the Crown corporations. We did these things so that never again could we be subjected to, as a legislature or as a people in a free democracy, the type of coverup and desperate election call which their own writers from the NDP have so well chronicled in a book called “The 1,200 Days,” which admits to the people of this province that they knew and were afraid of the tremendous losses and deficits of the Crown corporations. They were afraid to tell the people.

And let me say that their budgets contrast with the budgets of this government. The accountability given to the people all year long means they know what is happening in this province. We don’t want to go back to the old ways, to the old days. That’s what they did; and never let them forget it, for the parliamentary system is better served. The one good thing that came out of the NDP term in office was that never again will we go to that type of government, with that type of coverup, because now we have mechanisms in place to protect the right to know of the ordinary citizen in this province. That is what came out of what was a tragic period in this province.

Now what do we have today? What do we have in the tradition of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary cooperation? We have before us today a budget. As we did last year and as we have other years, this government has brought in the spring session…. For those few members on the other side who come from interior ridings, but have felt it comfortable to move out, to leave your people and move down to sunny Victoria, remember that it might be spring in January in Victoria, but for those of us who represent the broad crosssection of the province — the Interior and the north — it’s not spring there. Ask the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who during most of this session and sitting has left Nelson-Creston and only now has moved back, as he starts to calculate in his educated fashion because he was a teacher — that perhaps, yes, because there is an election every four years, it’s time to go back and let the people see him, to leave sunny Victoria and grace the people of Nelson-Creston with his presence once more.

I want to say that what we have here today is simply what has been procedure in every House in the British parliamentary system. The date of the calling of the spring session may vary as budget and legislative preparation will allow. There is no sense in calling a House until all of the legislation is ready.

I can remember this House when I was opposition, when they called the House and they brought in ill-prepared legislation. I can remember watching them bringing in amendment after amendment of sloppily drafted legislation. I can remember it well — budgets in which the then Finance minister didn’t understand his own budget. I can remember him presenting bills to this Legislature which he couldn’t explain. I remember his bill on assessments. He brought in the bill either two or three times, couldn’t explain it, kept withdrawing it and finally said: “I can’t deal with assessments.” And then he had the election and, fortunately, he was thrown out.

I want to say that this Legislature has been called in the month of March three out of the four sessions in which we have been here. That has been the tradition. It allows us more time for preparation of the legislation and budget because the end of the government’s fiscal year is the end of March. That allows us an accuracy which, by history, was never there with the NDP.

Today the Minister of Finance gave the in-

[ Page 280 ]

accuracies, overruns and amounts the budget was out, both in dollars and percentages, over the three years. I think it was over a billion dollars — an astronomical 14 percent error, compared to something around 1 percent for this government. It gives you an idea of what rush and hurry and whatever went into the preparation of their budgets.

Let’s get it straight that this is the regular meeting period for this assembly. This assembly is allowed unlimited time in which to carry out the business of the people. There are no restrictions as there were when you were here trying to force closure on the Legislature. We remember those days all too well, Mr. Member for New Westminster, when you sat over here grinning with your huge majority, scowling down at the little opposition. But we fought you and your arrogance, and the way you tried to bring closure to the people’s business was noticed by the people. You are no longer here. Perhaps very soon you will no longer be there, here or anywhere.

Last year we brought in the budget and interim supply, which is merely to pay those who work in the public service — those dedicated public servants who, day in and day out, carry on the people’s business; those people who supply services and supply the government — small businesses and single proprietorships; the people in the province who that party says are not getting paid fast enough.

Today, as part of the delaying tactics and the political games they have been playing, they were prepared to deny those people payment of their salaries and bills for goods and services by holding up what is normal procedure in this House and in the parliamentary system. I can hardly believe it, but I do believe the member from New Westminster when he says he’s ashamed. They should be ashamed.

Lately, in fact during all the years since we’ve been government, there has been a growing tendency on the part of that opposition not to be constructive, helpful, or to care for the people of this province, but to try to be divisive and destroy the very fabric of this province by creating misinformation, sowing the seeds of doubt and, above all, playing games in one of our most historic institutions, the Legislature of this province.

For years it has been traditional for the government and opposition Whips, by mutual consent, to arrive at ways in which the procedures in this House can proceed with a little bit of dignity and concern for the people. I’m sorry to say that our Whip, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), advises me that an agreement reached last week with the opposition Whip (Mr. Cocke), to observe the traditional procedure on budget day, and to waive the question period and introductions, was broken this morning. No reason was given. Not only that, the Whip said that in an appeal for some decency he was subjected to verbal abuse and the threat of bodily harm by the Leader of the Opposition, in language he usually reserved for women reporters in the corridors of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, with great respect, may I ask you to get back to the motion? The Whips’ business is not the House’s business.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the events surrounding the delay are certainly relevant to the concern I have for the people who may be hurt by the actions of that opposition.

There’s plenty of opportunity for debate. There’s plenty of opportunity in the things that divide us, the philosophical differences between individual opportunity and big socialist government by the NDP. But why play games with the rules of the House? Why play games with the regular organization of House’s business? Why make these people the innocent pawns in the political game that they’ve been playing? It’s hard to believe that this could happen in British Columbia in this year of 1979. It’s hard to believe, but it’s happening, and no wonder the member for New Westminster is ashamed. They’ve been left on their own and, unfortunately, there is, in fact, no leadership. It’s uncertain who the leader of the New Democratic Party is.

We’ve seen a political charade going on, in which, buoyed by the polls of the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stephens) — I don’t want to dwell on their authenticity or accuracy — which suggest they might be the government, they’ve been on a campaign to try and force an election in this province. They’ve had the head of the B.C. Federation of Labour, who, though not publicly declared, is considered the real leader of the NDP in this province. They have the present leader — in name only — of the NDP uncertain about his future and reacting wildly in dealings with the government Whip and other members of this Legislature. And sitting in the background, smiling, waiting to return as the architect of socialism, is Bob Williams, watching them destroy themselves as the three of them fight for control. Of course, feeling confident, the triumvirate of the NDP is trying to unsettle the people, unsettle this House and stall the

[ Page 281 ]

people’s business, using the workers in the government service and the little businessmen who just want to be paid for their services as innocent pawns in their political game.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than to see that these people are paid. It’s not on the principle of the budget; it’s not on the estimates. It’s common courtesy in most parliaments to pass it without debate, with no debate at all, with none of the shenanigans we’ve seen in this Legislature where the opposition attempted to put closure on the Premier of this province when he was speaking in the throne debate the other day. There are none of those shenanigans that we have seen and the political games that surround this House.

I’m afraid that the opposition, in trying to force an election or force this uncertain condition upon this province, is inhibiting and may inhibit this House from conducting the business of the people. I’m afraid that it will deteriorate, as they wish it to deteriorate, so nothing positive can happen. I can remember reading reports in the newspaper where the Leader of the Opposition went down to the Maritimes, where he thought he was safe, and was quoted as saying that things were bad in British Columbia and he was enjoying it. He was laughing.

MR. SPEAKER: And now to the motion, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this motion should have gone through without debate, but now we’re involved in a debate which surrounds the very principles of the parliamentary system and whether the people can be made to suffer because of the political machinations of the official opposition and the New Democratic Party. The political gamesmanship that’s been going on outside of this House and has now come into this chamber is something that should never happen.

We have the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) trying to construct the scenario that somehow this is geared to us holding what he terms a “mini-convention,” but which, to this party, is a major provincial convention. Now it is true that the New Democratic Party’s token to democracy is a convention once a year; our party holds conventions on a regional basis all year, and now has two major provincial conventions a year, one in the Interior and one on the coast, because we’re not afraid to meet our people. We’re not afraid to take some suggestions from them or be accountable to them. We have built a party of over 80,000 people, and rather than developing a party, Mr. Speaker, which is a collection of power groups, we have built bridges to every group in society – the teachers, the labour union members, the non-unionized people, the professionals, the doctors, the businessmen and the ordinary people of this province, to draw them in.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, order, please. May I interrupt what you are saying? The tack which you are taking in your address may be well and good, but it is not on the point. May I ask you again to move to the motion?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I know that this goes beyond the bill itself, but I was only responding in kind to the remarks you allowed from the member for New Westminster and other members of the opposition. I feel they made statements that must be answered, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that in your fairness and your impartiality you will allow the Premier of this province the same opportunity and latitude that you allowed the opposition. So, Mr. Speaker, as I am not opening new subjects, but dealing with subjects that they have opened, I know that you will allow me to continue. Once you have allowed that latitude to the member for New Westminster and others, you certainly would allow the Premier of the province to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: On that same point of order, Mr. Premier, not to take up the argument at all, but just to make it very clear to the House, every member always seeks the latitude that was extended to the other member and then seems to surpass it to some degree. As a result, I would ask all members to assist the Chair by trying to remain in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to receive your guidance, and I know that the firm hand you hold on the first speaker sets the standard for the rest.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, it’s not a matter for levity; it’s a matter for seriousness and one on which I feel very strongly. We’ve now, in this chamber, been brought to a point where what was allowed last year in what the New Democratic Party felt was a non-election year…. They allowed the traditional interim supply motion to go through. Today, because it’s part of their game plan over the latest months — the Jim Kinnaird NDP leadership rallies – events outside and events inside this House have brought us to this point. Yet I am concerned for the ordinary people of this province, the public servants and those who would supply

[ Page 282 ]

government; I am concerned that this tactic will prevent them from being paid. It is of concern to me that they should become the unwilling victims of a New Democratic Party strategy, or non-strategy, or whatever they have in mind.

I would urge this House, Mr. Speaker, to pass this interim supply bill without delay. It is not too late for you over there to find a measure of responsibility. It is not too late to embark on a course that respects the people who work in the public service and the little business people of this province who supply government, so that they can be paid. It is not too late for you to find a measure of accountability to the people of this province that would go beyond the type of tactics you have been employing. This particular unpleasant period that you have forced may be a benchmark, Mr. Speaker, from which we can rise above these petty tactics, and which we can use as a measurement, as we did when they were government when they tried to force closure. Perhaps by their distorted actions, from their tactics to suppress, from their political gamesmanship, we can arrive at and rise to better things.

In the days when they were government, when they used that crushing majority to bring closure on the opposition, we, a little opposition of 11 people, forced them to extend discussion of the people’s business. Perhaps we can rise from the tactics they’ve employed today as opposition and force the same thing — the decision not to return to these tactics and to rise above them, and to bring a measure of accountability, a measure of responsibility and, above all, a measure of concern for the people we were elected to serve.

I’m distressed that I would have to get up and make this speech tonight, because I was hoping that the public business could have been conducted in what, in any other parliament, would be a normal fashion. That opposition cares not for the people. They care only for their political gamesmanship. I’m fed up, and the people of the province are fed up. Mr. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), they’re fed up with you. No matter how often you play your piano in the rotundas and lobbies you cannot overcome your actions and your support of what that opposition has done. Let us pass this interim supply, pay the people and then get on with their business.

MR. KING: My initial observation is that the Premier certainly takes liberty with the facts. Indeed, his imagination knows no bounds when he makes a speech such as he has just delivered.

The Premier kept referring to respect for the parliamentary process in this Legislature and at the same time suggested that the Premier, by name, should have some special status in terms of rights in this Legislative Assembly. If he knew anything about the British parliamentary tradition, he would know that the Premier should not, and indeed does not, enjoy any superior right to any other member of this Legislature. To suggest and to try to demand some superior right shows not only an ignorance for the process but an arrogance unbounded in the annals of this Legislature.

The Premier seems to delight in bringing up the name of Bob Williams in the apparent belief that this somehow tortures the opposition. I want to say for my part I am proud of the record of Bob Williams as Minister of Forests in this province. I’m very proud of the record of a man who held the portfolio of Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I would like to ask the government: are they equally proud of their prior Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources – Robert Sommers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. member, please — to the motion before us.

MR. KING: I’m responding to the points made by the minister when he appealed in his eloquent way for the latitude which the Chair extended to him. I simply wanted to clear the name and defend the reputation of a member who sat in this Legislature previously and who is not here now to defend himself against scurrilous innuendo from any member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. KING: He’s not in jail, my friend, nor does he stand convicted for any criminal offence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: With the record of that government, to stand up…. What a sorry, unseemly record to even deign to besmirch the record of an NDP cabinet minister who sat in this House! Shame on you!

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the bill before us is Bill 2. It has nothing to do with the record of former members of this House. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[ Page 283 ]

MR. KING: I was just moving to the bill, but I am pleased to have had the opportunity to put on the record my respect and admiration for a former colleague.

I want to make a few brief points on the thing. I’m not sure whether the people in the galleries understand what the debate is about. It’s about a budget that has been introduced today in excess of $4 billion, which is a very large amount. This revenue and these expenditures are based upon taxation of each and every sector of our economy and our society. It was introduced in the Legislature today. The press and the electronic media were granted the opportunity to have a copy of that budget speech at 9 a.m. this morning. They were closeted in their room under guard, I understand. I don’t believe it was armed guard — I hope not. They were allowed to study that budget.

We in the opposition felt it was reasonable and courteous that some of the same consideration should have been extended not only to the official opposition but to the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stephens) as well. That is tradition in this House. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is our finance critic, received a copy of the budget speech at 12:30 p.m. I suggest that any business of this House should be shared with the members of this House, as a prior right and as a matter of privilege, before it is released to anyone else. I have no objections to its release to the media. But certainly the simultaneous release at least to the leader of the party is a matter of courtesy and respect for the parliamentary process and a matter of respect for the rights of the members of the Legislative Assembly. To do less, in my view, is to show contempt.

That’s bad enough. And one can argue and go back and forth on who allowed most time – the NDP when they were in government, or Social Credit while they were in government. Even that is not the main issue. Out of this budget in excess of $4 billion the government is now seeking approximately $1.25 billion for interim supply to pay the bills due on April 15, the fiscal year ending at the end of March. The opposition called on the government to convene the Legislative Assembly prior to the end of the last fiscal year, not only to provide new authority for spending, but to deal with the chronic problems of the economy which are afflicting all the people of this province – such as unemployment, inflation, spiralling food costs and other commodities, which fixed income people, particularly, are facing in this very turbulent time.

It was the government’s choice that they failed to call the Legislature until March 22. They have the majority; it was their choice. Having done so, and having extended the courtesy of allowing the media to study the budget from 9 o’clock in the morning on budget day, but not deigning to afford the same opportunity to the opposition until 12:30 p.m., they finally asked us for interim supply at 5:30 p.m. — one half hour before the normal closing time of this assembly. I ask you in the galleries, and I ask the public of this province, regardless of your political convictions, if it would be responsible for the opposition to let $1.25 billion spending authority be passed through this House in 30 minutes. That’s precisely what the issue is.

Mr. Speaker, they put forward interim supply at 5:30 p.m. The House normally rises at 6 p.m. My friend and colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), made a statement to the government that if they would give us overnight to consider the implications of this $1.25 billion we would guarantee quick and expeditious passage of this bill tomorrow, without delay — a commitment on the floor of this Legislature. And if you don’t know what that means, my friends, you have no respect for the traditions of parliament. If they don’t understand a commitment on the floor of this Legislature, then there is little hope of appeal. The commitment was that we should have overnight to consider expenditures of this kind. There are no wage bills due until April 15. The Premier knows that. The Premier came before this House tonight and made an emotional speech and said that we are denying workers and others the opportunity to be paid. He knows that is not true. The bills of this government are not due until at least the middle of April.

We have guaranteed passage of this bill tomorrow. But the government has the majority. The Premier talked about the grinding majority that the NDP had. Well, he has the equivalent majority today. He has the right and the opportunity to bludgeon this bill through if he so wishes. But I suggest to you that it is the height of folly, the height of irresponsibility, to demand that this Legislature pass through $1.25 billion in half an hour.

Remember the Premier of this province when he was Leader of the Opposition and we set a time limit on debate of 135 hours? He ran out of this Legislature and he travelled around the province saying: “Not a dime without debate.” Where’s the consistency? Tonight he demands over a billion dollars in half an hour. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it was parliamentary to do so, I would say that kind of conduct and that kind of policy smacks of hypocrisy. I

[ Page 284 ]

wouldn’t attribute that to any individual in this Legislature. But I would say that that policy is certainly not consistent, and it certainly smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Now the Premier has talked about all the wonderful things he has done. Yes, the Social Credit government has done some good things; every government does. I want to congratulate the….

Interjection.

MR. KING: My friend says: “Name the one you did.” I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we do is ask the government to muster their courage and call the election and let the people tell him about the good things that we did. I have better things to do than stand in this institution and pat myself on the back for all the wonderful things the NDP did. After hearing the budget speech today, Lord knows everyone has had enough of that self-adulation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the government for two things which the Premier remarked on. He mentioned his quarterly reports, and I say great. It’s nice to give an accounting to the people of British Columbia once every quarter — nothing wrong with it. I say that the auditor-general is a good move too. We congratulate the government for introducing an auditor-general.

That’s another reason why we are hesitant and reluctant to see over $1 billion speeded through this Legislature in half an hour. We have respect for the auditor-general appointed by that government, an auditor-general who has just tabled her first report with the Legislature. Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, a copy did not come to each member of the Legislature. There is a copy in the Legislative Library.

I want to read to you one of the statements made by that auditor-general of whom that government is so proud. Article 6.14 says:

“I consider that deficiencies and ambiguities in the content and application of stated accounting policies are sufficiently serious to warrant a thorough study of the government’s accounting policies and financial statement presentation.”

That’s what their own auditor-general says, and they come in here and brag about it. But the Premier gets up and, in light of a statement like this, calls the opposition irresponsible for not allowing in excess of $1 billion to be speeded through here in half an hour. Shame on them.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I’ll go anywhere in the province and debate this with anyone. I see a couple of Socred candidates in the gallery tonight. I wonder if this is the kind of financial accountability, trust and responsibility that both candidates would want to tell their constituents about.

Mrs. Erma Morrison, the first auditor general appointed by the Social Credit government, for which I congratulate them, had this to say in her first report. I’m going to read it again, by common request.

“Item 6.14. I consider that deficiencies and ambiguities in the content and application of stated accounting policies are sufficiently serious to warrant a thorough study of the government’s accounting policies and financial statement presentation.”

The auditor-general, bless her soul, was apparently less than convinced that the accounting policies of this government were adequate. She considered them adequately serious to comment upon in her year-end report.

I do not want to incur the wrath of the auditor-general, Mrs. Erma Morrison. I respect her competence, integrity and impartiality. I wonder what she would say in next year’s report if the opposition caved in to a heavy-handed majority of Social Credit members and allowed over $1 billion of the people’s money to be passed through this House in less than half an hour. I expect that next year she’d comment on the opposition’s dedication to duty. What a sham this outfit is. That’s what the issue is about — an opportunity for the opposition members to go over the entire budget. There are new ministries and programs included, and if within the period of half an hour we approved one-quarter of that budget, in essence we have given approval, sanction and recognition to each and every item of expenditure and revenue which is outlined in the budget. It’s completely buying a pig in a poke.

I suggest that it’s scandalous and irresponsible for the government of the day to ask the opposition and the people of British Columbia to accept that kind of approach. There is no reason on earth why this could not be held over till tomorrow and passed through the Legislature once we have had an opportunity to view the estimates and study the new programs and text of the budget. To come here prepared to comment intelligently and ask the crucial questions that should be asked in committee stage before this bill is passed through the House is what the debate is about. We have no intention of filibustering; we couldn’t do so

[ Page 285 ]

if we wished, and that is not our intention. The government has the necessary majority. They have the rules of this House, which are fair and equitable. Our objective is a responsible appraisal and scrutiny of this vast sum of money that has been put before the Legislature today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to take a few minutes to make comments in regard to the opposition’s filibuster. I guess they are trying to make a point. I’m not sure what it is. It’s a very interesting thing. I used to consider myself a new member. But now that I’ve been in this House three years, I’ve got to tell you that I think this is the worst exercise yet. For an opposition with learned members, a former Minister of Labour, a former Minister of Human Resources, a former Minister of Education, a former Minister of Health, a former Minister of Housing, and a scattering of others over there — all people who are well versed in the routine of this House — to stand up and make the comments they have….

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

One comment I’d like to make to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), who is just leaving, is that this government had the guts to appoint an auditor-general; your government did not. When the auditor-general files her report, Mr. Member, recognize that it was this government that appointed her, not your government. Her purpose is really to act as a watchdog on the government and its actions. She talks about “financial statement presentation.” He’ll build that into a great speech and confuse the issue.

All they want to do here is go through an exercise of filibustering the day away for no purpose at all. In regard to the bill of interim supply, they are passing one-quarter of the total budget for the year; they would be voting on that. It says that the interim supply bill can only deal with those items that are in the main estimates for the fiscal year. They know that we will be debating the estimates as routine business of this House. The reason for this exercise is that they can’t stand the impact that this budget will have on the public. This budget is the best budget you’ve ever seen, Mr. Member over there, and you know it. So you put up a great smokescreen over the fact that we’re trying to put through an interim supply bill.

You know full well that an interim supply bill goes through without debate. It’s a courtesy and a tradition of the House to put it through so that the public employees of this province can be assured that they will get their paycheques, and that the small businessmen who contract with the government to provide services or materials or goods can get paid for those services or those materials. But you’d forgo all that for this exercise, in the hope that you can take some of the limelight off the budget that the Minister of Finance presented today. Well, forget it. You just won’t do it. That budget is reaching the people of the province, and they know exactly what you are doing here tonight.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I’m glad I have, Mr. Member, because it takes you a long time to get the point.

MR. BARNES: Who’s filibustering now?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, I just thought I would get up and say a few words. I’ve listened to you long enough over there. I thought I’d just add my two cents to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, at least they’ve got a value of two cents. The way you people act, they’d only be worth about a cent and a quarter; we’d have to discount your two cents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, would you address the Chair and stop this cross-floor banter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The Whips’ agreement has been talked about here tonight. He whom we might call the elderly statesman of this House had to take verbal abuse and threats this morning when he attempted to discuss the arrangements that were made between the opposition Whip and himself with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) – before he ran away to Alaska or wherever he went. The Leader of the Opposition verbally threatened him during that meeting.

It’s unfortunate that the tradition of the House was broken by that party. I’m not sure of their motive. I’m not sure whether it’s lack of leadership or not, and the fact that the leader of the opposition party is concerned about his back and concerned about the pressures that are being put on him by the president of the Federation of Labour, Mr. Kinnaird. He’s possibly concerned about the fact that Mr. Leggatt is coming back from Ottawa and is going to have a go at the leadership of the NDP.

[ Page 286 ]

The only concern I have, I guess, is the fact that a routine item going through this House today is blown out of all proportion by an opposition party which really isn’t concerned about the people out there who work for the government or those people out there who supply goods and services to the government. Then they talk about the fact that the House hasn’t been called until March — why we didn’t call it sooner. Yet, as the Premier stated, the last three out of four sessions that have been held in this House have all been called in March.

MR. NICOLSON: That’s not true.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I beg your pardon. If it’s not true you can correct me at the end of my statement.

The supply bill is an interim supply bill, a measure that is taken along with the budget to ensure that accounts can be paid.

Mr. Speaker, I think that their actions are petty. I think the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) commented that pushing this through in 30 minutes, as he put it, was a petty action on the part of the government. I’d suggest that the activity on the other side of the House is probably petty in the worst sense, because of the fact that they aren’t considering the public employees and the people who supply, as I mentioned, goods and services to this province. Mr. Speaker, the budget that was brought down today was a budget that really has taken away all their thunder, and they’re clutching at straws. When for the first time we can indicate to the people of the province that we’ve reduced sales tax to 4 percent, it must have really stunned the opposition. They went away and said: “We’ve got to do something to try and save the day.”

When we look at the fact that we assisted the farming community…. One of their big ploys is to keep saying that this government doesn’t recognize the farming community, and yet in the last few years the farming community has had the best years they’ve had in many a year. They don’t want assistance from government, they want it from the marketplace, and they’re getting it from the marketplace. But behind all that, they’ve got the assurance that this government’s got an ongoing policy of stabilization for them. It’s not a five-year contract that comes due — I know because I had to go through that exercise — but an ongoing policy of this government to support the agricultural community, and you know it as well as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: That’s why they sacked you.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, at least I’ve been there, Mr. Member. You haven’t.

Mr. Speaker, I’m just pointing out that some of the impact of that budget today, a budget for the 1980s and a budget that will assist many people, will give them greater purchasing power, and by doing so will further improve the economy of this province.

Mr. Speaker, it’s taken us three years to clean up the mess we inherited. We’ve built a strong foundation, and I think the budget today indicates…. When we were elected in 1975, we were elected on our promises. We promised the people that we would bring back fiscal responsibility, that we would bring in accountability, and we’ve done that. Next time, whenever that election is called, we’ll go to the people on our record, and the people of this province are going to re-elect this government, not by a majority of 35, but I’d even hazard a guess of a majority of 45. I’ll give a few in the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons for this delay, as I mentioned before, are petty. They are in a vain hope of getting some headlines away from the budget that was presented by the Finance minister. I can only conclude by saying that that entire opposition, and especially the former ministers of the previous administration, should be thoroughly ashamed.

MR. LEVI: I just want to remind the newer members of the House that in contrast to what the Premier said about the tradition of passing interim supply in this House, I would advise some of the backbenchers of the government to go to the library and pull out Hansard for the years when the NDP were government, and look at some of the interim supply debates that took place at that time. In 1975, on June 9, the Minister of Finance introduced interim supply. A debate followed, and I want to quote from the statement of the then Leader of the Opposition, when he said:

"Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this interim supply bill would have been introduced a little earlier, because there is some comment that should be made on supply. Although we’re going to support it…. As it relates to the budget, naturally we’ll support it because we don’t want to hold up services in this province.”

That was said by this side of the House this evening in respect to the supply bill that is before us now. It was said by the Premier when he was making his remarks as though it’s the first time such debate has taken place in re-

[ Page 287 ]

spect to interim supply.

What was interesting about that particular time was that the debate went on right up till 6 o’clock. There was an adjournment, and it went on into the evening. But it was done in a rational, reasonable way. Nobody tried to push it through. There was consultation.

It’s all very well for these new members to stand up as though something had taken place — nothing new at all. What’s new is the inability of that government to consult in order to make the whole process rational.

So before you go off disclaiming the terrible things the opposition is trying to do in respect to the interim supply, you should know the facts and the recent history of this House. We didn’t criticize the behaviour of the opposition when we were government because they wanted to debate supply. The present Minister of Labour took part in that debate. That’s acceptable. No great rush to judgment. Concern about the debate. It was allowed. But for the Premier to get up and to make the kind of statement he made is absolutely ridiculous. It’s never happened without debate. It could be irresponsible for an opposition, and for a government, to expect that’s the way it should be.

As my colleague from Revelstoke has said, particularly in relation to the recent report by the auditor-general, you have to have even more concern. We have had concern about quarterly reports that show as being unaudited. Now we have it from the auditor-general herself. The concern is so great that there should be an investigation and an inquiry into the procedures. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. Nothing wrong at all. What is remarkable to me is that if the government were to stop to think for one minute, if they had approached us and asked us, and brought this up tomorrow, we’d have gone through with it and got on with other business. But no, because of the petulance of the Premier we’re here at 10:10 arguing about past history that those people on that side want to forget about because it’s too embarrassing.

Those new people over there and the loudmouths who sit at the back there who never have the guts to get up and say anything should go to the library, look up Hansard, and find out what the facts are. Then they can get up and debate like intelligent people.

MR. SMITH: It is a pleasure to take my place in this debate because of some of the statements that have been made by the members in the opposition. The thing that’s most apparent is the very selective memory that the opposition employ from time to time in this House. They have a very selective way of remembering certain things that happened in the House, but are very prone to forget others things that have happened with respect to the operation of this Legislature. The member opposite who just took his seat said: “Go to the library. Look what happened in the interim supply before.” Well, I didn’t have to go to the library, Mr. Member. All I had to do was go over to the bookshelf and pick up the Journals of the House to tell you what happened on other occasions when we dealt with interim supply.

You mentioned the year 1975 when you spoke just a few minutes ago, Mr. Member. You were wrong in the date. Interim supply was introduced into the House on March 26. Supply Bill No. 1 was introduced on March 26, 1975.

MR. LEVI: No, no. Supply Bill No. 2.

MR. SMITH: The bill was introduced, read a first time, then by leave read a second time. The bill by leave of the House went into committee and was approved. The bill by leave of the House was read a third time on March 26, 1975. So let’s get a few facts straight about the position that has been taken by the then opposition in interim supply in past years.They’ve a very selective memory.

In 1976 interim supply was introduced on March 30. It was given first reading. It was given second reading, by leave. It was debated in committee and adjourned for a few days because the House adjourned while we were still in committee. It was given final approval on April 7. So what’s so mysterious about interim supply bills coming in around the end of March?

In the following year, 1977, interim supply was introduced on March 30. It was given first reading, advanced into second reading by leave, went through committee and was given third reading and approved on March 30. How much debate took place? Very little. The traditions of the House are those that the people opposite decide they wish to reflect upon as traditions when it’s convenient for them to do so. There’s nothing mysterious about interim supply. It is a tradition of the House to put in an interim supply bill so that the accounts of government can be assured and paid on a regular basis after March 31 in any given year, if, in fact, we have not approved the budget by that time. It’s an ordinary, simple, very uncomplicated procedure with respect to the House.

The members of the opposition would try to make us believe that by giving quick and speedy passage to interim supply, they’re being derelict in their duty. The only thing

[ Page 288 ]

derelict in the duty of the members of the opposition has been their inconsistency with respect to the way they want to apply the rules of this House, both in debate and when the rules of the House come down not always in their favour.

The suggestion made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is, in my opinion and, I am sure, in the opinion of all of the members of government, a valid one. The reason we are debating interim supply, the reason that the opposition wish to have interim supply laid over and stalled, is that they do not want to get involved in the debate on a budget that is the best this province has ever seen.

They talk about changing the rules. I’ve been in this House as a member of the opposition and the rules were changed conveniently by the then government of the day. It was the leader of the then government, now Leader of the Opposition, who changed the rules with respect to bringing the budget in on a day other than Friday and forcing the then opposition into the position of having to debate it the following day.

As the opposition, time and again we had bills called for second reading debate that had been in the House for less than two days. Introduce a bill one day, call it for debate the second day, and deny the opposition the right to adjourn the debate – oh, yes, we know all about the selective memories and the selective procedures used in this House.

It was the members of the now opposition who have played and perpetrated more disgraceful acts on this Legislature than any collective opposition in the history of this House. It’s on the record, and everybody knows about it. We know what happened, and as I was part and parcel of a lot of those scenes, so I know personally what happened. Mr. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), who gets up and talks about equality and fairness in debate in the House, have you got a rule book to throw at somebody else’s head this time? Have you got a rule book to throw at the Speaker’s head again, Mr. Member? We can remember those days.

Interim supply is a matter of granting the Crown the money that is necessary on an interim basis. There’ll be lots of opportunity for full debate of the budget. But I suspect, as I stand in my place this evening, that the opposition do not want to debate that budget, because they’re embarrassed. What can they say against it? What is there in there that they do not like? They say it is irresponsible to grant the Crown interim supply. What nonsense.

They said they’ve had no opportunity to question the new ministers that have been appointed on the cabinet benches. I ask you, what’s question period for? Don’t answer. The performance of the opposition with respect to question period since the day this House was reconvened has been scandalous. It’s been a disaster. There has not been one concentrated attack on any one particular subject by the members of the opposition. It has been a scattergun attack as you’ve never seen.

How many times have they asked these new cabinet ministers questions about their portfolios? Look in the record and find out how many questions came directly to the new ministers in question period. If they are so concerned about the new ministers, how come they haven’t been asking them questions? Where’s their research? Where’s anything to do with the real work of this House that has been reflected by the questions asked by the opposition?

They’ve been bare bone questions, almost an embarrassment to themselves at times, trying to conceive enough questions to last 15 minutes. It’s fairly obvious again today.

This session has lasted a little more than a week. Yet we’ve had more bills introduced today than we’ve ever had, I think, at any other session by a similar time. If the opposition are concerned about not getting their legislation in they have no right to make that accusation. The budget came in today and, along with it, ten pieces of legislation — bills that are now on the order paper. When did the opposition, when they were government, ever give us that type of a break in the introduction of bills? Never. As a matter of fact, as pointed out by the Premier of the province, the only thing you could depend on was that whenever a bill came into the House it would be amended about seven times before it came back in a form it could be used. Amendment after amendment. We had bills come in with more pages of amendments than the original pages involved in the bill. Those of us who have been here long enough to know and remember the days when they were government remember these things. If we want to start comparing what went on before to what’s happening now it would seem to me there are some of us who have sat in the House long enough to know the story from both sides.

There is nothing mysterious about a supply Act. It’s a simple, straightforward bill, granting to the Crown the right to pay off the accounts that are and will be due — well, they’re due now, on April 1. For us to say that the public servants are the only ones involved is not true. Many, many accounts of the government would be held up if it were not for interim supply.

[ Page 289 ]

The system is used in every democratic jurisdiction in the world, the same as we use an adjournment rather than a prorogation now and go from the start of one fiscal year of the Legislature right through to the end of that year – prorogue one day and start a new session the next. There is nothing mysterious or new about that. It was an innovation late in coming to this chamber, but used by many other jurisdictions for many years.

The tack taken by the opposition on interim supply is nothing but a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they do not want to debate the budget and the provisions it makes of innovative and new programs, of tax relief and tax deductions for people in this province who deserve those breaks.

We have a vibrant province. That’s being reflected by the budget. It’s being reflected by tax breaks and tax deductions. Interim supply is a very simple fact. It’s a mystery to me that the opposition have chosen the one bill they should have let go in a matter of minutes, in order to circumvent debating the budget itself, which is the real need of the Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before proceeding with the next speaker the Chair was pleased to receive recently the latest edition of Beauchesne’s “Parliamentary Rules and Forms,” fifth edition. Page 104, referring to members in debate – remarks made by the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) – prompted me to peruse the journal to ascertain if some of the words he used were, in fact, on our list of new prohibited words. I would suggest that all hon. members will have time over the ensuing weeks to peruse this list. Perhaps it will make debate in the House much more pleasant if we take this very fine journal as our guide in using it in reference to other members of the House.

MR. KERSTER: This is a first since my election to this chamber. It’s the first time that I have had – or at least I have felt the necessity – to stand and speak in an interim supply debate.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) says it will be the last. I want to remind him there is one thing about this government that his government never had anything to do with. That was a positive situation and good management. That’s not going to be the last. That’s a first since 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to suggest to you that the debate in this House this session has generally been positive. This government brought down a very positive throne speech. The debate, at least on this side of the House, was very positive. Today came the fourth budget — and I emphasize the fourth, because I’ll get back to that, Mr. Speaker — brought down by this government, and again it was a very positive budget, the greatest budget ever brought down in this province.

What has the reaction been, Mr. Speaker? I’ll tell you what the reaction has been. The reaction has been nothing but negative carping, whining, muling and puling — whatever you want to call it — from a very negative loyal opposition. They don’t want to debate. It comes right down to the brass tacks. They don’t want to debate the budget, and that’s why we’re here tonight, plain and simple — they don’t want to debate the budget. In fact, frankly, I wish that the hon. Premier would call the election tonight, because I’ll tell you what: we wouldn’t hear any of that negative nonsense anymore because nine-tenths of them wouldn’t be here.

Mr. Speaker, the theme of this debate tonight is typical of the NDP opposition. It’s nothing but out-and-out obstructionism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who’s the leader over there, Bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps if….

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it Bob Williams?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What leader? Which leader?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) kindly restrain himself? The member speaking is being interrupted by members of his own party. Perhaps if members of his own crowd would….

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, just let me get on with this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if your own government benches would assist government members, then the Chair’s job would be a little easier.

MR. KERSTER: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have the floor.

MR. KERSTER: As I was saying, the theme of

[ Page 290 ]

this debate seems to be typical of the NDP opposition. It seems to be obstructionism again. Otherwise, why wouldn’t this interim supply bill, which…? Granted, I haven’t been here very long, but I realize from what everyone has said and what I’ve read that this is somewhat of a traditional bill. Who stands to suffer, Mr. Speaker — the opposition? No way! They’ve got their cheque already. What do they care? They’re rich. I’ll tell you who stands to suffer — the civil servants, the guys who did all the work for those characters when they were in government and took all the lumps, except for a few in 1975; and the small businessmen who supply services to this government on a day-in and day-out basis and supply services to the people of the province. All they want to do is be paid on time.

Mr. Speaker, today we brought down a very positive budget, after three very difficult years. It’s very interesting to note, and I think it’s been touched on by several speakers who preceded me, that the former government…. I hate to jog their memory, particularly in a situation that is very definitely so uncomfortable for them, but they went to an election in November 1975.

Why did they do that, Mr. Speaker? I’ll tell you why they couldn’t do it. Mother Hubbard’s cupboard looked like a cornucopia. The former NDP government of this province was dead bare when it came down to their bankroll. They couldn’t bring in a budget. It’s that plain and simple. A positive budget, a negative budget, any old budget would have done in 1976. They just couldn’t bring one in. So what did we do? We went to an election in 1975.

There was nothing there. The province was hopelessly in debt. That’s why there was no budget. Their Finance minister — his name was Dave, or was that the former Finance minister…? They say he didn’t want to expose himself. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you right now that no one in this province would have called him Dave the Flasher — no one. Never would you see him perched at the top of an escalator with his raincoat open. It would never happen. He was not going to expose himself, because B.C. was broke.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KERSTER: That’s not on your list, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I have just made reference to Beauchesne’s list of unparliamentary words. You might find that the word “flasher” is not included in Beauchesne’s latest list. However, Beauchesne is subject to amendment from time to time, and I think that a good-order requirement of this House would require that one not use it. Please proceed in a more moderate tone.

MR. KERSTER: I would never bring up an immoderate flasher, let me assure you of that. I want to stress the point that we didn’t have a budget in 1976 from the former government that went to an election in '75 because British Columbia was broke. They didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to bring in a budget in '76, and I want to talk about that intestinal fortitude just very briefly before you flash through those pages.

The Leader of the Opposition came up with a not unusual situation for him today; he broke an agreement. The former Premier of this province, the guy who stands up and does all the whining and the screaming about how brave he was, and how his word was this and that and everything else, the guy who says that everything this government’s doing is wrong, while this province is making great progress and great strides and is a leader in Canada, a guy whose word is obviously gold – even though it be fools’ gold – broke an agreement. We call it the Whips’ agreement very briefly. And then we get off that.

I think it was somewhat reprehensible. That man whose temper is known only to those reporters, female or otherwise, that temper that’s known across this province, because Manny Dunsky isn’t here anymore, isn’t here because he told Dave there was great leadership in this province — now neither one of them is here — threatened a man who is much his senior, a very honourable man, the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). Just shut your eyes and try to imagine this. Here’s a very “gutsy” political leader. Here’s a real “gutsy” guy, the Leader of the Opposition; a former Premier and a former Leader of the Opposition. Frankly, hon. members, it’s a wonder he isn’t a former yoyo – he’s been there and back twice. The fact of the matter is that this guy stood up today and physically threatened a 67-year-old man. That’s gross.

I guess we really have to delve into the psyche of this guy. We have to say: why? Was it because of his obvious frustration with losing in ’75? Not only with losing his seat — which I had a hand in; Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that — but with the positive moves of this government. Or was it the frustration of the positive and bright things that are on the horizon for the province of British Columbia? You can rip this out of your book; but that’s a hell-damner. B.C. is moving ahead; B.C. is doing great things; B.C. is leading

[ Page 291 ]

Canada. And there is a man who goes to Halifax and says: “B.C. is in trouble and I’m enjoying every minute of it.” Does that man have any concern, really, about the province of British Columbia, or the people of this province? There’s no way on earth that he has any feeling for this, and that’s why we’re seeing an unfeeling opposition withholding funds that should properly go immediately to members of the public service, and to those small businessmen whom they claim such a tremendous amount of heart and feeling for, but whom they really couldn’t give a hoot about — small businessmen who wait 60, 90 or 120 days because somebody in this joint can’t get going and pay the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I find that hard to swallow. None of this nonsense is necessary. Interim supply has always been a tradition, except for that obstructionist NDP opposition. I suggest that they get off their collective butts and get down to conducting the people’s business.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Chairman, it’s interesting to listen to discussion tonight and then think back to a night in 1953 when the government of that day was defeated on the floor of the House. I can quite see the frustrations of the opposition with such an excellent budget, and I would say that it is no doubt the best that I have seen by far in the 23 years that I’ve been here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don’t think there’s any question that governments, no matter who they happen to be, have to pay the government workers. And whether it be a small portion of the budget or not, it really doesn’t make that much difference, because a real debate can take place when the budget itself comes up and the minister’s estimates are on the floor of the House. After listening to the debate from the opposition it’s no wonder that industry is holding back hundreds of millions of dollars waiting for the election, because I wouldn’t want to spend a dime either if I was in the hands of the opposition party.

It is interesting to look back in the Votes and Proceedings. On March 24, 1953, on page 142, the government was defeated. In those days, you know, we had a very responsible opposition, and we see on March 26, two days after the defeat, the opposition agreed to pass, without debate, not only $94 million ….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Without debate?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Without debate.

It’s interesting to note they passed second reading of the following bills without debate: An Act to Amend the Administration Act; An Act to Amend the Evidence Act; An Act to Amend the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, 1952; An Act to Amend the Electric Power Act; An Act to Amend the Greater Victoria Water District Act; An Act to Amend the Small Debts Courts Act; An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act; An Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Determination Act; An Act to Amend the Vancouver Foundation Act; An Act to Amend the Securities Act; An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act; An Act to Amend the Coroners Act.

Then we go over two days later and they passed through third reading without debate: An Act to Amend the Creameries and Dairies Regulation Act; An Act to Amend the Soldiers’ Land Act; An Act to Amend the Irrigation Assistance Loan Act; An Act to Amend the Mount Robson Park Act; An Act to Amend the Garibaldi Park Act; An Act to Amend the New Westminster Parks Act, 1908; An Act to Amend the Wills Act; An Act to Amend the Adoption Act; An Act to Amend the Jury Act; An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act; An Act to Amend the Pound District Act; An Act to Amend the Trespass Act; An Act to Amend the Farmers’ and Women’s Institute Act; An Act Authorizing the Appointment of a Committee to Inquire into Development of the Columbia River Basin; An Act to Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act; An Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act; An Act to Amend the Municipal Improvements Assistance Enabling Act; An Act to Grant Certain Powers to the Greater Vancouver Water District…. Would you like to hear them all?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

HON. MR. SHELFORD: An Act to Repeal the Corporation of the District of Saanich Act; An Act to Amend the Audit Act; An Act to Amend the Hospital Construction Act, 1950; An Act to Amend the Stock-brands Act; An Act to Amend the Horned Cattle Purchases Act; An Act to Amend the Beef Cattle Producers’ Assistance Act….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Without debate?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Without debate.

…An Act to Amend the Lands Act; An Act respecting the Rehabilitation of Irrigation Systems in British Columbia; An Act Providing for the Incorporation of the Corporation of the District of Kitimat; An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act; An Act to Amend the Teachers’ Pensions Act; An Act to Amend

[ Page 292 ]

the Civil Service Superannuation Act; An Act Relating to Mental Defectives – sometime maybe we should all take a look at that one; An Act to Amend the Lunacy Act; An Act to Amend the Sexual Sterilization Act; An Act to Amend the Mental Hospital Act; An Act to Amend the Clinics of Psychological Medicine Act; An Act Respecting the City of Victoria; and An Act to Amend the British Columbia Corporation Income Tax Act, 1949.

Then you go on to March 26 when they passed another bunch through third reading without debate: An Act to Amend the Garibaldi Park Act; An Act to Amend the Administration Act; An Act to Amend the Evidence Act; An Act to Amend the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, 1952; and An Act to Amend the Coal and Petroleum Products Control Board Act. There was no debate.

Maybe you heard me say before that there was a responsible opposition in those days.

An Act to Amend the Greater Victoria Water District Act, An Act to Amend the Small Debts Courts Act, An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act, An Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, and An Act to Amend the Vancouver Foundation Act — all of these passed second committee and third reading. It’s interesting to note that the Vancouver Province of that date reported by my old friend Fred MacNeil:

"Twenty-third Legislative Assembly wound up its business last night by voting $94 million” — a lot less than it is today, but it’s the same percentage — “and passed, without a word of debate, 55 non-controversial bills.”

So it’s nothing very startling in passing interim supply. I’ve seen it done practically every year that I’ve been in the Legislature.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many years have you been here?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Twenty-three years. I might say I’ve been around the place for 26 years.

It was interesting to note the lack of cooperation by the opposition today for a simple interim supply bill. You can see when you look back in history that the opposition generally does cooperate with government so that the civil servants can be paid.

MR. STUPICH: What happened to your budget, Cyril?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Prices are so good, my friend, we don’t need as much to pay the farmers as you did.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You can take a look at that. That’s all income assurance payments. The beef prices are so good that they won’t be necessary for the coming year.

MR. STUPICH: Tell us about Cargill.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I’ll tell you about Cargill whenever you want. You may get a chance quicker than you think. [Laughter.]

After looking at the record over the years, I think it’s quite clear that what we’ve seen in the Legislature today is nothing more than obstruction in trying to get this province moving. There is a great deal of interest in development in this province and the quicker we get away from this type of a situation where people are left in limbo, the better.

The opposition seem to be quite willing to say: “Go, go, go!” My answer to that would be: “Yes, let’s go and let’s get on with the governing of the province.” You can see by the budget that it’s the most exciting budget this province has ever seen. I think it’s time we went back to the people and got a solid mandate. You won’t be there.

I don’t think any government can stand idly by and see the business of the people held up and the province’s economy held in limbo while a group across the way is trying to hold us up.

There are lots of other things I could point out in the debate of 1953, where the opposition of that day took a very responsible stand and allowed the government to go ahead and pass certain legislation so they could go to the people. The people had their say. They said it very clearly and they will the next time too.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I rise in my place to speak in support of this motion which is directed to the benefit of the average person in this province. It’s the average person who would benefit from the implementation of this budget, not excluding the people in the public service in this province who have a right to be paid, including the people of this province who have worked for and supply this government in the implementation of this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me, from the previous session of the Legislature, the debate which was put forth by that opposition on the matter of interim supply. It is one half of one page in Hansard. And all of a sudden the opposition would have us believe that this is a matter of extraordinary importance. It is indeed a matter of extraordinary importance,

[ Page 293 ]

but not one that warrants all of the hot air from those benches opposite this day.

The truth is transparently obvious today, Mr. Speaker. That opposition doesn’t have the guts to deal with the greatest budget in the history of this province. That opposition is running scared from a great budget. That opposition will not deal with a budget with which their own budgets pale by comparison.

In three years they increased the annual spending of the dollars of the taxpayers of this province at an average rate of 27 percent. They fuelled inflation with their spending, and they failed miserably to approach the quality of this budget, a budget which has been brought in within budget constraints of 5 percent, a budget which has been brought in, over the total term of this government, within inflationary guidelines. In government, that party opposite increased the spending of this province by more than double. And yet, Mr. Speaker, that party could not compare, in their wild spending, with the quality of services to the people of this province; they could not compare with the restraint which has been demonstrated today in this Legislature.

That party opposite will not address this budget because they dare not speak against the budget, a budget which would reduce the tax burden on the people of this province to the second lowest in the country today, a budget which would reduce the sales tax to 4 percent, which would reduce personal income tax in this province, which would reduce corporation capital tax in this province, which would benefit some 65,000 taxpayers in this province — persons with tax reductions ranging up to $89, persons in this province who, on retirement, will enjoy unprecedented benefits of tax reductions — a budget which would increase the renter’s tax credit by $50 annually, which would permanently increase the homeowner’s grant by more than $100 — which, added to the increases of previous budgets under this government, amounts to a total increase of $250. This is a budget which will improve the lot of every person in this province, and especially those in need.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) stood up and said he was embarrassed, and they are embarrassed at this hour because that party in government could never bring in a budget which could compare with this one. If they were in the official opposition for 50 years, they could never mount a legitimate criticism of this budget. They can only hide behind what they dare not pose in a direct challenge to this government — a vote of nonconfidence — because the people of this province would never leave them in the position of official opposition again, with a vote of non-confidence.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The members opposite say: “Goodbye.” I’m pleased to hear that they’re leaving so soon.

This government has brought before this House in the past week an outstanding combination of opening speech and budget. It is indeed a one-two punch you’re still reeling from, and you’re groping for an answer.

A dental care assistance program, which adds to a commitment in the coming years of more than $100 million a year in new hospital construction, which adds to….

MR. SKELLY: You’re holding up the payments.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Where was it when you were in government? You had three years to bring it in. You talked about long-term care and you did nothing about it. This government brought in long-term care, universal pharmacare, and this government will bring in denticare.

They would like to have the motion, now that they are shrinking in embarrassment behind their desks opposite. The members opposite had the opportunity, as is tradition, to bring in the wages and salaries legitimately earned by the public servants of this province. They had the opportunity to bring in sufficient funds for the payment of the suppliers of this government. But in their groping and inability to face an outstanding budget, they could not. They would hide behind the meanest of obstructions. They’re laughing, Mr. Premier, because they have no responsibility. They would use the public servants of this province.

The hour is late. The opposition doesn’t want interim supply. They don’t want to pay the public servants of this province. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.